Guwahati Court June 1971 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Samauddi Sekh and anr. Vs. Abinas Chandra Sharma
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-23-1971
P.K. Goswami, C.J.1. This Revision is directed against an order Passed by the Magistrate First Class, in a proceeding under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code declaring possession of the disputed land in favour of the first party.2. The first party submitted written statement and affidavits. The second party submitted their written statement and their sole affidavit. The learned Magistrate after perusal of the documentary evidence produced before him declared possession of the disputed land in favour of the first party.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the affidavits should not have been treated as evidence in the case as these were not sworn before the Magistrate who passed the final orders. In support of his contention he relies upon two decisions of the High Courts of Allahabad and Rajasthan, respectively ( : AIR1963All256 Wahid v. State and AIR 1966 Raj 5. Hemdan v. State of Raiasthan). He also very fairly draws my attention to a decision of the Puniab High...
Basanta Basumatri and ors. Vs. Dehi Ram Nath
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-10-1971
P.K. Goswami, C.J.1. This reference is by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Tezpur, recommending quashing of the order passed by the Magistrate, First Class. Mangaldai, Under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code declaring possession of the land in dispute in favour of the first party and restoring possession of the first party who was dispossessed on 7-2-1968 (not 7-2-67).2. The grounds on which the reference has been made are that the land is not identifiable and that the learned Magistrate based his decision on local inspection which was not authorised Under Section 148 (I) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question about the identity of the land was never raised in the proceedings by any of the parties. It is, therefore, difficult in revision to entertain such a plea. With regard to the local inspection, which had been made by the learned Magistrate on 10-11-1968 no objection was raised by any of the parties before him although the order was passed on 29-11...
KayumuddIn Mia Vs. Abdul Gafur and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-08-1971
M.C. Pathak, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, L. A. D. at Gauhati. The accused-opposite parties were charged Under Section 302/34 and 323 I. P- C. The prosecution story in brief was that on 25-10-1966 Abdul Jabbar after taking his tea in the morning went out of his house when he was assaulted by the accused-opposite parties. His son Kayumuddin Mia on hearing alarm went there and saw his father being assaulted by the accused persons from a distance of about 10/15 yards. He immediately rushed to the place of occurrence when he was also assaulted by the accused persons. Abdul Jabbar fell down and became unconscious. Hearing hulla Kamla Khatun wife of Kayumuddin and Nasiban Nessa wife of Abdul Jabbar came to the place of occurrence. The two injured persons were removed to their house where Abdul Jabbar succumbed to his injuries. Kayumuddin was then removed to the hospital for treatment. Ejahar was lodged at Barpet...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›