Guwahati Court June 1981 Judgments
Harej Ali Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-26-1981
K.N. Saikia, J.1. The appellant Harej Ali has open convicted under Section 302 I. P. C and sentenced to imprisonment for life on the basis of a statement recorded in course of investigation, treated as a dying declaration, and evidence of eye witnesses.2. On 25-7-75 P. W. 2, Ahmed Ali, lodged an ejahar at the Dhing Police Station that at about 2 P- M. that Friday while his father Abdul Rahman Khan (deceased) was laying thatch on the road near their house, an altercation ensued between him and Harej All, Harmui Ali Mafizuddin, Abdul Matalib and Sirajul Haque, and Harej and Harmuj, as ordered by the rest, bringing, lathis from their house clubbed - and felled Abdul Rahman Khan as well as Ahmed Ali (the complainant). Registering a case thereupon police (P. W. 6) came to the place of occurrence and recorded Abdul Rahman's statement and forwarded him for treatment to Ahomgaon State Dispensary wherefrom, after treatment, he was brought back home where he died next morning. Charge sheet was ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagawat Sawrup Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Taxes and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-08-1981
T.C. Das, J. 1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of letter No. KGS-95/80-81/ 303-342 dated 7th February, 1981 (annexure A to the writ petition along with annexure B), issued by the Superintendent of Taxes, Gauhati, Circle No. 1, respondent No. 2, relating to import of taxable goods into the State of Assam by road.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a businessman and is carrying on the business of selling, purchasing, supplying, storing or otherwise disposing of goods, viz., automobile spare parts, hardware, electrical goods, machinery parts and spares and general stores under the name and style of M/s. Allied Auto Agencies. In the course of business, the petitioner used to purchase the goods and store the same for the purpose of selling, after importing them from outside the State of Assam. Besides, the petitioner also used to purchase materials within the State of Assam as and when necessary. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.D. Sharma
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-05-1981
Das, J. 1. Both the petitions will be covered by this common judgment as the parties are same and similar question of facts and common question of law arises. Civil Rule No. 18(M)/79 relates to the assessment year 1973-74 and the other, viz.. Civil Rule No. 19(M)/79 is for the assessment year 1974-75, These two applications have been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal dated August 26, 1978, in R. A. Nos. 93 and 94 of 1977-78. The Revenue being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19th January, 1978, in dismissing the appeals by the learned Tribunal, they moved an application praying for a reference to the High Court on the question of law. According to the Revenue, the question of law involved in both the cases is as follows: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, Section 2(23) and Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in holding the...
Tag this Judgment!Chauna Orang Vs. the State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-01-1981
K. Lahiri, J.1. The case is entirely dependant on 'Circumstantial evidence' as opposed to what is styled as 'direct evidence'. 'Circumstantial evidence' ordinarily means a fact from which some other fact is inferred, whereas, 'direct evidence' means testimony given by a person as to what he has himself perceived by his own senses. All evidence is either 'direct' or 'circumstantial'. It will be noticed that direct evidence means 'direct assertion' whereas 'circumstantial evidence' means a fact on which an inference is to be founded. Direct evidence is the testimony of a witness to the existence or non-existence of a fact or facts in issue. By circumstantial evidence is meant the testimony of a witness to other facts i. e.. facts other than those in issue which are of course relevent facts from which the fact in issue may be inferred. As to the admissibility both forms of evidence stand, generally speaking, on the same footing, and the testimony, whether the 'factum probandum' or the 'f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›