Guwahati Court June 1982 Judgments

Mohammed Ali Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Pathak, Actg. C.J. 1. These applications under article 226 of the Constitution of India are directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, North Eastern Region, Shillong, passed under Section 18(2A) of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The assessee in the present cases submitted returns under the W.T. Act, for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1971-72, voluntarily before the WTO, B-Ward, Gauhati. The returns were, however, submitted beyond the prescribed time. The WTO issued notice under Section 18(2) of the W.T. Act, directing the petitioner to show cause as to why an order imposing penalty for late submission of returns should not be made under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act. 3. On receipt of the notice, the assessee moved petitions before the Commissioner under Section 18(2A) for waiver of the penalty imposable under Section 18(1)(a) on the ground that the petitioner voluntarily and in good faith made a full disclosure of his net wealth...

Bharat Chandra Das Vs. Prangopal Ch. Das

Court: Guwahati

Das, J.1. An important question that is posed before us in this revision application is what the executing Court would do in case two conflicting decrees are passed by two competent Courts on the same subiect matters. To avoid the situation of this type, two provisions viz. Section 10 and S, 11 have been incorporated in Civil Procedure Code. This revision petition which has arisen out of an order of the executing Court appears to be a peculiar one and of uncommon nature as a result of which a peculiar position has arisen. To appreciate the position that has been involved in this revision application it would be necessary on our part to narrate the facts of the case briefly which has been set out below.1. The petitioner of this revision petition was the defendant, in Money Suit No. 11560 filed by the opposite party claiming a sum of Rs. 1,000 as damages for malicious prosecution in the court of Munsiff. Barpeta. The defendant contested the suit. On trial the learned Munisff decreed the...

Lalrinfela Vs. State of Mizoram and ors.

Court: Guwahati

K. Lahiri, J. 1. This is a petition for habeas corpus which involves computation of the period of detention required to be set off Under Section 428 of Cr. P.C., for short 'the Code', when an accused is convicted in more than one case and the periods of detention during the investigation, inquiry and trial of one case overlaps the other.2. The petitioner was arrested on 6-9-80 in connection with G. R. Case No. 456/80. While in such detention as an Under Trial prisoner he was formally arrested at different times in other cases, including G. R. Case No. 496 of 1981. In the last case, he was formally put under arrest on 22-9-80, though he was already in detention in connection with G. R. Case No. 456/80. On 12-1-1982 he was convicted in G. R. Case No. 496 of 1980 under Section 380 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R. I. for 10 months and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 20 days and further sentenced to R. I. for 2 months said to be Under Section 75 I.P.C. ...

Bimal Indwar Vs. State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

1. This appeal is from jail against the judgment and order passed by learned Sessions Judge, U. A. D., Jorhat on 2-3-81 in Sessions Case No. 190 (S-G)/79.2. The brief narration of the facts leading to the present appeal are that on 27-3-78 deceased Mangri Tate, wife of P. W. 2 Samru Tate went to sell some articles in some distant villages. She was accompanied by the appellant. When the deceased did not return in the same evening of 27-3-78, P. W. 2 the husband of the deceased made search of his wife but ultimately when the search did not produce any result, he lodged a missing report in the police station on 30-3-78 stating the fact that his wife went out of his house accompanied by a boy named Bimal (the present appellant) to sell some articles in some distant villages but had not returned by then. On 31-3-78 the dead body of the deceased was found on the sand of Dhansiri river buried under it. Her dead body was exhumed, inquest was held. Meanwhile a first information report was lodg...

income-tax Officer Vs. Mahari and Sons.

Court: Guwahati

Per Shri Anand Prakash, Accountant Member - These nine appeals rise a common ground. They are, therefore, heard together and are being deposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. Five of these appeals, viz., for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1970-71, have come up to us for the second time. They had earlier come up at the behest of the department and the position is same this time also. The Tribunal was called upon earlier to decide whether the assessee was assessable in the status of as AOP and whether the income was exempt in terms of Section 10[26] of the Income tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. The Tribunal sent back the case of the AAC to ascertain the fuller facts as to be ownership of the properties in question and then determine the question of assessability of the assessee. The learned AAC in his turn sent back the matter to the ITO with the direction that the ITO should complete the assessments afresh as per provisions of law. In accordance with the above direction, th...

Md. Nurul Haque and ors. Vs. the State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

K. Lahiri, J.1. The alleged occurrence took place on 21-10-1970. twelve long years ago. It took only seven years for the trial Court to conclude the trial of the complaint case. Learned Magistrate convicted the accused for commission of the offences of criminal trespass, rioting and theft of property. On conviction by the trial Court the accused applied for bail but their bail bonds were accepted only on 25-4-1977, they were released from fail on 26-4-1977. therefore they were in jail for four days. An appeal preferred by them was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence the revision.2. At the outset I would observe that the accused persons have been sentenced to short term simple imprisonment (for 30 days each) and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. In my opinion, it s sheer injustice to order an accused to suffer short term imprisonment after a apse of 12 long years of the occurrence. The accused were not the authors of the d...

Ramautar Choukhany Vs. Hari Ram Todi and anr.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1982CriLJ2266

1. The allegations contained in the complaint and the initial deposition of the complainant, even if they are taken at their face value, and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner, accordingly, the petitioner claims that the case insofar as he is concerned is liable to be quashed under Section 482, Criminal p. C. for short "the Code". This is the sole contention of the petitioner,2. The contours of the jurisdiction of the High Court when it exercises its inherent powers under Section 482 of "the Code" have been set out by the Supreme Court amongst other decisions, in R.P. Kapur , Nagawwa; , Madhu Limayeand State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy.3. In R.P. Kapur (supra) three categories of cases have been referred which are illustrative in nature but not exhaustive where the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a proceeding. One amongst them is that if the allegations in the complaint, even if they are accepted at their...

Khagendra Nath Bayan and anr. Vs. the State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1982CriLJ2109

1. The two accused-petitioners in this application under Section 482/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure impugn the Sessions Judge's order dated 21-4-82 cancelling their bail.2. Upon an ejahar lodged by one Mohan Chandra Das to the effect that death was caused to his niece, Bhatima Bora, by Durgeswar Bayan and the two petitioners on 21-3-82, the Patacharkuchi P.S. Case No. 67/82 under Section 302/34 I.P.C. was registered and all the three accused were arrested and produced before the Magistrate on 22-3-82. On 23-3-82 on a bail petition the learned Magistrate granted bail to the petitioners observing that Rajat was too old and Khagendra was sick, and refused bail to Durgeswar. Mohan Chandra Das, the complainant, moved the Sessions Judge, Gauhati, who after notice to show cause, cancelled the petitioners' bail holding that granting of bail with such promptitude definitely gave a scope to the accused to interfere with the investigation of the case if possible; that Section 437 Cr. P.C. ...

Khagendra Nath Bayan and anr. Vs. the State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1982CriLJ2109

ORDERK.N. Saikia, J.1. The two accused-petitioners in this application under Section 482/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure impugn the Sessions Judge's order dated 21-4-82 cancelling their bail.2. Upon an ejahar lodged by one Mohan Chandra Das to the effect that death was caused to his niece, Bhatima Bora, by Durgeswar Bayan and the two petitioners on 21-3-82, the Patacharkuchi P.S. Case No. 67/82 under Section 302/34 I.P.C. was registered and all the three accused were arrested and produced before the Magistrate on 22-3-82. On 23-3-82 on a bail petition the learned Magistrate granted bail to the petitioners observing that Rajat was too old and Khagendra was sick, and refused bail to Durgeswar. Mohan Chandra Das, the complainant, moved the Sessions Judge, Gauhati, who after notice to show cause, cancelled the petitioners' bail holding that granting of bail with such promptitude definitely gave a scope to the accused to interfere with the investigation of the case if possible; that S...

Ramautar Choukhany Vs. Hari Ram Todi and anr.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1982CriLJ2266

ORDERK. Lahiri, J.1. The allegations contained in the complaint and the initial deposition of the complainant, even if they are taken at their face value, and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner, accordingly, the petitioner claims that the case insofar as he is concerned is liable to be quashed under Section 482, Criminal p. C. for short 'the Code'. This is the sole contention of the petitioner,2. The contours of the jurisdiction of the High Court when it exercises its inherent powers under Section 482 of 'the Code' have been set out by the Supreme Court amongst other decisions, in R.P. Kapur : 1960CriLJ1239 , Nagawwa; : 1976CriLJ1533 , Madhu Limaye : 1978CriLJ165 and State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy : 1977CriLJ1125 .3. In R.P. Kapur (supra) three categories of cases have been referred which are illustrative in nature but not exhaustive where the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a proceeding. One amongst t...