Guwahati Court September 2000 Judgments

Sindhi Das (Debbarma) Vs. Kaizar Debbarma and ors.

Court: Guwahati

1. Heard Shri P. Roy Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.B. Deb, learned sr. counsel for the respondents. 2. This Criminal revision is directed against the impugned order dated 11.3.1997 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura in case No. 1122/96. 3. The facts leading to the present revision in brief are that on a complaint filed by Smt. Sindhi Das (Debbarma) C,R. case No. 1122 of 1996 was registered and after examination of the complaint and witnesses, process was issued against the accused-petitioners under section 376, 498-A IPC. During the pendency of the enquiry, a joint application was filed for withdrawal of the case on the plea that the matter has been compromised and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide impugned order allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the case against all the three accused-petitioners and discharged them. The present revision has been preferred by the complainant stating, inter alia, that the impugned order was...

Sindhi Das (Debbarma) Vs. Kaizar Debbarma and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 2001CriLJ20,II(2001)DMC539

1. Heard Shri P. Roy Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.B. Deb, learned sr. counsel for the respondents.2. This Criminal revision is directed against the impugned order dated 11.3.1997 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura in case No. 1122/96.3. The facts leading to the present revision in brief are that on a complaint filed by Smt. Sindhi Das (Debbarma) C,R. case No. 1122 of 1996 was registered and after examination of the complaint and witnesses, process was issued against the accused-petitioners under section 376, 498-A IPC. During the pendency of the enquiry, a joint application was filed for withdrawal of the case on the plea that the matter has been compromised and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide impugned order allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the case against all the three accused-petitioners and discharged them. The present revision has been preferred by the complainant stating, inter alia, that the impugned order was pa...

Union of India Vs. State of Tripura and ors.

Court: Guwahati

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Dhar, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.B. Deb, learned senior counsel for the respondent. Heard also Mr. S. Das, learned Public Prosecutor, Tripura for the State respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 28.2.2000 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, No.1, West Tripura, Agartala in Sessions Trial No. 133 (WT/A) 1999. 3. The facts leading to the present petition in brief are that the accused Devendra Rai, Head Constable No.80002767 while attached I.G. Head Quarter P&R; BSF, Salbagan, was involved in Airport P.S. Case No.31/1998 under Section 354/376 IPC. The accused was arrested in the above case and subsequently the accused was charge sheeted. On case being committed, the above referred Sessions trial was registered. Vide order dated 23.9.1999 the accused was charged under Section 375 IPC and thereafter as many as 7 witnesses are examined. On 8-2-2000 i.e. during pendency of the trial,...

Bhaba Tahu @ Anjol Payeng @ Nibaran Gogoi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...

Court: Guwahati

1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 29.12.1999 passed by the District Magistrate, Jorhat under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980.2. We have heard Mr. BD Konwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. BC Das, learned counsel for the respondents and Mr. D Sur, appearing on behalf of Union of India.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made only submission before us, that the material in support of the grounds of detention have not been supplied to the detenu, therefore, the detention of the petitioner is vitiated and he is liable to be set at liberty.4. In connection with the above submission, our attention has been drawn to Annexure-1, dated 29.12.1999 the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Jorhat and Annexure-III dated 31.12.1999 under which grounds of detention was furnished to the detenu. In the end of the letter (Annexure-II) enclosure is indicated as. Grounds of detention were enc...

Union of India Vs. State of Tripura and ors.

Court: Guwahati

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Dhar, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.B. Deb, learned senior counsel for the respondent. Heard also Mr. S. Das, learned Public Prosecutor, Tripura for the State respondent.2. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 28.2.2000 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, No.1, West Tripura, Agartala in Sessions Trial No. 133 (WT/A) 1999.3. The facts leading to the present petition in brief are that the accused Devendra Rai, Head Constable No.80002767 while attached I.G. Head Quarter P&R; BSF, Salbagan, was involved in Airport P.S. Case No.31/1998 under Section 354/376 IPC. The accused was arrested in the above case and subsequently the accused was charge sheeted. On case being committed, the above referred Sessions trial was registered. Vide order dated 23.9.1999 the accused was charged under Section 375 IPC and thereafter as many as 7 witnesses are examined. On 8-2-2000 i.e. during pendency of the trial, the...

Prabhat Chandra Paul by L/R Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Guwahati

N.L. Dash, J.M.In this case, the assessee has preferred second appeal and although at the outset, she had filed so many grounds but the authorised representative made a prayer for admission of revised grounds after making it a concise one and that too, he fairly conceded on the additional ground no. 1. Therefore, the only ground remains for consideration is ground no. 2, as the third ground is general in nature. The three additional grounds made by the learned authorised representative on behalf of the assessee are as follows :'(1) For that, on the facts and circumstances of the case and as well as on points of law the assessing officer should have allowed transit loss of Rs. 19,089 and Commissioner (Appeals) should have revised the order of assessing officer on this point.(2) For that, on the facts and circumstances of the case and as well as on points of law the assessing officer should have allowed loss of Rs. 3,14,924 and the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirm of the conditio...

Seltun Fison Anal Vs. State of Nagaland and ors.

Court: Guwahati

D.N. Chowdhury, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Habeas Corpus challenging the validity of the detention of the petitioner, Shri Selton Fison Anal, who was detained under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1980 for short, vide order dated 29th January, 2000. The detenu(petitioner) was served with the grounds of detention which are reproduced below : '.. 1. That your activities in the capacity self-styled Lt. NSCN(IM) an unlawful association were prejudicial to : (a) defence of India (b) Security of the State of Nagaland (c) Maintenance of Public order. 2. The particulars which have a bearing on the above three matters are specified in the Schedule attached. 3. You are also informed- that you have a right to make a representation to the detaining authority, State Government and the Central Government through the concerned Jail authorities. You have also...

Seltun Fison Anal Vs. State of Nagaland and ors.

Court: Guwahati

D.N. Chowdhury, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Habeas Corpus challenging the validity of the detention of the petitioner, Shri Selton Fison Anal, who was detained under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1980 for short, vide order dated 29th January, 2000. The detenu(petitioner) was served with the grounds of detention which are reproduced below :'.. 1. That your activities in the capacity self-styled Lt. NSCN(IM) an unlawful association were prejudicial to : (a) defence of India (b) Security of the State of Nagaland (c) Maintenance of Public order. 2. The particulars which have a bearing on the above three matters are specified in the Schedule attached. 3. You are also informed- that you have a right to make a representation to the detaining authority, State Government and the Central Government through the concerned Jail authorities. You have also a r...

Chowtan GohaIn Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and ors.

Court: Guwahati

J.N. Sarma, J.1. This writ application has been filed for quashing the notification No. FOR-79/77 dated 16th August 1978 issued by the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh declaring khanpoi Anchal Reserve Forest, the order No. AND/49/91/2451-56 dated 19th March 1993 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Namsai Forest Division, cancelling the no objection certificate earlier issued in favour of the petitioner and the continuation of the proceeding by the Deputy Commissioner Lohit District towards cancellation of the land possession certificate earlier granted in favour of the petitioner with further prayer for a direction to the state Govt. and the Respondents to forbear from giving effect to the aforesaid notification No. FOR-79/77 dated 16th August 1978 and the order No. AND/49/91/2451-56 dated 19th March. 1993 and not to proceed further in the proceeding towards cancellation of the land possession certificate earlier granted to the petitioner.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :...

Dy. Cit Vs. the Assam Tribune

Court: Guwahati

By the BenchThe department has filed this appeal for the assessment year 1989-90 against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) by which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has deleted the addition of Rs. 5,66,845 made by the assessing officer on account of outstanding liabilities written off.2. The assessee has filed the cross-objection justifying the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,66,845. The assessee has also stated that the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in holding that the assertion to the effect that the liabilities were not actually written off in the books of the assessment year 1990-91.3. We have heard the learned representatives of the parties and have perused the orders of the authorities below.4. The relevant facts are that there were old liabilities amounting to Rs. 5,66,845 incurred by the assessee prior to the assessment year 1983-84. The assessee had written off of the said liability in the assessment year 1990-9...