Guwahati Court January 1974 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.
Balu Mia and ors. Vs. Matiur Rahman Choudhury and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-03-1974
Baharul Islam, J.1. This reference has been made by the Sessions Judge, Cachar Silchar, and arises out of a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The reference has been made on the ground that the learned Magistrate has not referred to all the documents and affidavits filed by the parties and as such, according to the learned Sessions Judge, the impugned order is not warranted by Sub-section (4) of Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, 2. Shri P. G. Barua, learned Counsel appearing in support of the reference leads me through the impugned order passed by the Magistrate. It appears from the order of the Magistrate that after receipt of the initial order the parties appeared: the first party filed its written statements, 11 affidavits and other documents including copy of a decree in a civil suit. The second party also filed Us written statement 11 affidavits and some documents. The Magistrate appears to have considered all these documents. He has assessed their...
Kanthi Ram Das Vs. Uttam Sarma and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-02-1974
Baharul Islam, J.1. This reference has been made by the Sessions Judge. Gauhati, and arises out of a proceeding under Section 145. Criminal Procedure Code. The reference has been made on the ground that the learned Magistrate failed to consider the affidavits and documents filed by the parties.2. Shri B.K. Goswami learned Counsel supporting the reference, leads me through the order passed toy the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate in his order itself has stated that the first party has filed five affidavits and the second party filed three in support of their respective claims, but in the order the learned Magistarte has stated that the first party has 'failed to adduce evidence to show that he was actually possessing the disputed land ...' The learned Magistrate was presumably under the mistaken belief that evidence did not mean evidence by affidavit. Affidavits filed by the par-, ties under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code constitute evidence within the definition of the term in...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›