Guwahati Court March 1979 Judgments

U Saul Dkhar Vs. State of Meghalaya

Court: Guwahati

Baharul Islam, Actg. C.J.1. The petitioner was being tried for an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code. The trial was being held by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills, Shillong exercising the powers of the Sessions Judge. The case has a protracted career. Evidence was recorded by five successive Additional Deputy Commissioners before, each in part. Ultimately it came up for hearing argument on 29-6-1978 before Shri P.J. Bazeley, Additional Deputy Commissioner of the aforesaid district. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Shri Bazeley) observed:.Evidence has been completed and recorded by a large number of successive presiding officers of this Court. As such it would not be proper for the Court to appreciate the evidence at this stage. Let there be a de novo trial.Fix 1-8-1978 for evidence and summon all non-official P. Ws. on that date and all official P. Ws. on 3-8-1978...This order has been challenged by this application under Sections 435/439 of th...

Sudhir Namasudra and ors. Vs. Purnendu Kumar Das

Court: Guwahati

K. Lahiri, J. 1. The moot questions raised in the civil revision are:-- (A) What is the limit or extent of the jurisdiction of an appellate Court hearing an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the C. P. C.? Whether the appellate Court is competent to interfere with an order passed by the trial Court holding that there was no violation of an order of injunction merely because it arrives at a different conclusion on the same set of facts but without arriving at the conclusion that the findings arrived at by the trial Court were unreasonable, perverse or violative of any known principles of civil jurisprudence? (B) Whether the judgment of the appellate Court can be sustained when the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court was grounded on several reasons and the appellate Court merely finds one of such grounds to be unreasonable and reverses the judgment and order of the trial Court? (C) Whether a person not injuncted against by a civil court under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code can be pe...

The Superintendent of Police, Cachar and ors. Vs. Abdul Rashid

Court: Guwahati

B.N. Sarma, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the defendants who lost in both the Courts below.2. The respondent Abdul Rashid filed the suit against the appellants namely (1) the Superintendent of Police, Dist. Cachar (2) the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar and (3) Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (appellants 1 to 3 herein) for a declaration that he is an Indian citizen and for a perpetual injunction restraining them and their agents from deporting him from India and also from removing him from the post of Jail Warder. The facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal may be stated in brief as below.3. On 8-5-65 the appellant No. 1 served an order under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act on the respondent, his wife and six daughters asking them to quit India on the allegation that they are Pakistani nationals. Thereafter, on the representation of the respondent, the matter was referred to the Foreigners Tribunal, constituted under the Foreigners (Tr...

Tilok Bahadur Rai Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1979CriLJ1404

1. This is a Criminal Revision application under Regulation No. 28 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, against the judgment dated 24-6-1976 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tirap District, Khonsa in case No. G.R. 10 of 1976 convicting the accused under Section 51(1) of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for 6 months.2. The facts of the case are, that in the evening of 8th of May, 1975 a tiger was shot dead by Sepoy Tilok Bahadur Rai at about 5.30 p. m. at Changlai Camp while on sentry duty. The accused, prior to shooting, informed the Guard Commander about the presence of the tiger and the Commander instructed that 2/3 rounds might be fired into the air to scare it away, but while this was being done the tiger, instead of fleeing, charged at the accused who fired two shots at it, one hitting the left shoulder blade and the other in the chest, and so hit, the tiger jumped and ...

Tilok Bahadur Rai Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1979CriLJ1404

ORDERK.N. Saikia, J.1. This is a Criminal Revision application under Regulation No. 28 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, against the judgment dated 24-6-1976 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tirap District, Khonsa in case No. G.R. 10 of 1976 convicting the accused under Section 51(1) of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for 6 months.2. The facts of the case are, that in the evening of 8th of May, 1975 a tiger was shot dead by Sepoy Tilok Bahadur Rai at about 5.30 p. m. at Changlai Camp while on sentry duty. The accused, prior to shooting, informed the Guard Commander about the presence of the tiger and the Commander instructed that 2/3 rounds might be fired into the air to scare it away, but while this was being done the tiger, instead of fleeing, charged at the accused who fired two shots at it, one hitting the left shoulder blade and the other in the chest, and so hit, t...

Dadhiram Sharma Vs. Tikaram Bhandari

Court: Guwahati

A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. The prosecution giving rise to this appeal by the accused was launched under Section 193, IPC, but has resulted in a conviction under Section 500, I.P.C. Having heard Mr. J. C. Ghosh, learned Counsel for the appellant, the learned Advocate-General appearing for the State and Mr. T.K. Pandit, learned Counsel for the complainant-respondent, I have no doubt that the judgment impugned cannot be sustained and that the appeal must be allowed on a point of law, the point being that there was no complaint in respect of the offence under Section 500, I.P.C. for which the accused has been charged and convicted.2. This ground, however, was not taken in the petition of appeal. But, where it is alleged that an illegality is so grave as to vitiate the whole trial, such a ground, though not taken specifically in the petition of appeal, must be allowed to be urged at the hearing in a criminal appeal. In this respect there is an apparent distinction between an appeal under the...

Md. Ataur Rahman Etc. Vs. Nityananda Das and ors. Etc.

Court: Guwahati

Baharul Islam, J.1. These two revisions involve the interpretation of Sub-article (5) of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and this common judgment of ours will dispose of both of them.2. Criminal Revision No. 191/75 arises out of a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr. P.C., 1973 hereinafter 'the Cr P.C. in which possession was declared in favour of the opposite parties. The petitioner then filed an application in revision before the Sessions Judge under Section 397(1) of Cr. P.C. The application was rejected. The petitioner then filed this application before this Court. It came up for hearing before one of us (Islam J.) sitting singly. When the petitioner was confronted with Sub-section (3) of Sec-397 of the Cr. P.C. which bars a second application in revision by the same person, counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has filed the application also under Article 227 of theConstitution, and that the case required interpretation of Sub-article (5) of Article 227 of the...

Krishna Bahadur Chetri Vs. State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

K. Lahiri, J.1. Two innocent young kids were knocked down and killed by a steel monster, a T. M. B. truck loaded with sand, on the National Highway; the alleged killer was apprehended within a distance of about half a furlong from the place of incident; the 'killer driver' was a complete stranger and the spot where the kids were found was on the turf portion of the road. No doubt arises in the mind that the driver was the 'killer' and he should be penalised. Sentiment plays havoc, takes upper hand over reason and drives a common mind to lay the charge against the alleged blameworthy driver. He is the killer. It must have happened due to his rash or negligent act, These are but the natural reactions in public mind.2. The driver, a professional man, earns his bread on the strength of his driving licence; he is destined to meet road-hazards natural and man-made, at every bend or turn of a road. He travels far and wide through hamlets and towns mostly through places where he can hardly e...

Akonti Bora and anr. Vs. the State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

K. Lahiri, J.1. The petitioners have projected this criminal revision against their conviction Under Section 427/34 I.P.C. passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 10 (S-J) 72 and upheld on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Criminal Appeal No. 18 (1) of 1976 sentencing them to suffer R. I. for one week only.2. Grave and serious allegations were brought against the petitioners and four others to the effect that they had set fire to a shack, put up by the first informant Puma, forming an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and entering into the paddy field of Purna. Upon investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the accused Under Section 147/436 I. P. C. However, the petitioners along with four others were committed by the Magistrate to stand the trial Under Section 148/149/436 I. P. C read with Section 34. The accused stood their trial and were charged by the learned Sessions Judge Under Section 148/34, 149/ 436/34 I. P. C.3. The case of t...

Krishna Bahadur Chetri Vs. State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1979CriLJ1258

ORDERK. Lahiri, J.1. Two innocent young kids were knocked down and killed by a steel monster, a T. M. B. truck loaded with sand, on the National Highway; the alleged killer was apprehended within a distance of about half a furlong from the place of incident; the 'killer driver' was a complete stranger and the spot where the kids were found was on the turf portion of the road. No doubt arises in the mind that the driver was the 'killer' and he should be penalised. Sentiment plays havoc, takes upper hand over reason and drives a common mind to lay the charge against the alleged blameworthy driver. He is the killer. It must have happened due to his rash or negligent act, These are but the natural reactions in public mind.2. The driver, a professional man, earns his bread on the strength of his driving licence; he is destined to meet road-hazards natural and man-made, at every bend or turn of a road. He travels far and wide through hamlets and towns mostly through places where he can hardl...