Guwahati Court January 1985 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.
Narayan Ch. Saha and anr. Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-29-1985
T.N. Singh, J.1. For adulterating 'jeera' (cumin) the petitioners were convicted Under Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for short, the Act, and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 6 months and to pay a' fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default further term of imprisonment of 2 months in each case. Second petitioner, Swadesh Ch. Saha, is the proprietor of M/s Saha & Sons in whose shop the first petitioner was employed as a salesman at the relevant time. Both of them appealed to the Court of Session against their convictions and sentences and having failed therein have come to this Court.2. Briefly stated prosecution's story is that on 28-6-77 the Area Food Inspector (P.W. 1) visited the grocery shop of M/s Saha & Sons and purchased 900 grams of 'jeera' which was kept in the shop for sale. He complied with the legal requirements prescribed in this behalf in doing so and in due course the sample was sent to Public Analyst for report after complying with the formalities prescrib...
Tuahkhopao Changsan Vs. Enjalian Lengthang and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-21-1985
Lahiri, Actg. C.J. 1. In exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 190(1) of the Assam Autonomous District (Constitution of District Council) Rules, 1951, for short 'the Rules' the Commissioner for Elections in the North Cachar Hills District Council, declared the election of the petitioner from 3 Barail Constituency to the North Cachar Hills District Council as void, in Election Case No. 2 of 1981. He submitted a report to the Governor of Assam as required under 'the Rules' and the latter, by his order dt. 4-4-1984, declared the election of the petitioner void, under Rule 191(3) of 'the Rules' and published the declaration in the Official Gazette. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has questioned the validity of the judgment and report of the Commissioner as well as the follow-up order of the Governor. 2. The up-shot of the impugned order is far reaching as the returned candidate has been un-seated, his election has been declared void and ther...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›