Guwahati Court March 1976 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.
Konthoujam Ibocha Singh and ors. Vs. Konthoujam Ibobi Singh and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-15-1976
K. Lahiri, J.1. This is an application under Section 407 read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for transfer of Criminal Revision No. 36 of 1975 from the file of Mr. Y. Ibotombi Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Manipur to this Court for disposal. It may be stated here that the Criminal Revision was originally numbered as Criminal Revision No. 54 of 1974 when it was pending in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Manipur.2. The requisite facts and events are set forth herein below:3. As far back as 11-11-71 on a police report the Magistrate, 1st Class, Imphal West, drew up proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal P. C. in respect of some agricultural land. In the said proceedings the present Petitioners were described as 'first party' and the Opposite Parties as 'second party'. The trial Court dropped the proceedings but the said order was set aside by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 15 of 1973. The trial Court decided the proceedings in favour of the prese...
Monoranjan Sinha Vs. Bishamborlal Saboo
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-05-1976
K. Lahiri, J.1. This is an application under Section 561-A read with Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hereinafter to be referred as 'the Code,' for quashing a complaint case being Case No. 1384-C of 1971 pending in the Court of Shri S. N. Rahman, Magistrate, Ist Class (Judicial) at Gauhati.2. Mr. J. P. Bhattacharjee, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in the instant case there is no question of appreciating the evidence but it is a case in which by merely looking at the complaint this Court is to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. The learned Counsel submitted that the essential ingredients of the offence are absent in the present case and as such this is a fit case in which this Court should exercise Us inherent power under Section 561-A to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice.3. The learned Counsel Mr. Bhairab Chandra Sarma appearing on behalf of the Opp-party has argued ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›