Guwahati Court March 2000 Judgments

State of Manipur Vs. Vikas Yadav

Court: Guwahati

1. This Revision petition under sections 379 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with sections 483 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 15.5.1999 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Manipur East, Shri Th. Sudhir Singh (under suspension) in Cril Misc. (Bail) case No.34/99 in connection with FIR Case No. 287 Mehrauli, P.S. Delhi under sections 302, 212, 201, 120-B/34 IPC in exercise of power under section 438 of the Code thereby granting pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner. At the outset, I must observe that in the note of Registry dated 20.9.1999 it is indicated that the service report upon the respondent has been returned after duly served, however, non appear on behalf of the respondent.2. I have heard Mr. T. Nandakumar, learned Advocate General on behalf of the State of Manipur assisted by Mr. Mohendro.3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the present revision petition is interesting and worth to be ...

State of Manipur Vs. Vikas Yadav

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 2000CriLJ4229

1. This Revision petition under sections 379 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with sections 483 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 15.5.1999 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Manipur East, Shri Th. Sudhir Singh (under suspension) in Cril Misc. (Bail) case No.34/99 in connection with FIR Case No. 287 Mehrauli, P.S. Delhi under sections 302, 212, 201, 120-B/34 IPC in exercise of power under section 438 of the Code thereby granting pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner. At the outset, I must observe that in the note of Registry dated 20.9.1999 it is indicated that the service report upon the respondent has been returned after duly served, however, non appear on behalf of the respondent.2. I have heard Mr. T. Nandakumar, learned Advocate General on behalf of the State of Manipur assisted by Mr. Mohendro.3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the present revision petition is interesting and worth to be noted...

R. Langkham Vs. John L. Killong and ors.

Court: Guwahati

N.S. Singh, J. 1. Upon hearing Mr. Banikumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. N. Ibotlmbi Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Jagatchandra Singh, learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the State respondents, I am of the view that this matter can be disposed of at the motion stage considering the facts and circumstances of the case and, accordingly, I hereby dispose of this writ petition with the following judgment and order.2. In this writ petition, the petitioner made a prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the Co-operative Tribunal Revision Case No. 1 of 1999 now pending before the learned Manipur State Co-operative Tribunal, Manipur and also for setting aside the impugned order dated 29-4-1999 passed in the said revision case as in Annexure-A/2 to the writ petition. Mr. Banikumar Singh, learned counsel at the very outset submitted that the learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition namely, the Co-operativ...