Guwahati Court December 2007 Judgments

Anupam Choudhury Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

H.N. Sarma, J.1. This case depicts a pathetic situation of a citizen, suffering at the hands of the respondent who has taken possession of his landed property without any formal acquisition order under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, and not provided any compensation till date.2. Heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Saikia, learned standing counsel appearing for the Public Works Department.3. The pleaded case of the petitioner, in this writ petition, interalia is that, he is the absolute owner of an area of land measuring 2 Katha, 7 lechas, situated in the village Ramcha Hill under Dag No. 1 of Patta No. F.S. Grant-1 Ulubari Mouza, Guwahati (Sadar) Circle in the revenue district of Kamrup (Assam). The name of the petitioner has been entered in the revenue records of right as pattadar. The Public Works Department of the State of Assam (respondent authorities) proposed to construct a road through the aforesaid land of the petitioner. In the process ...

Amphu Brahma Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Hrishikesh Roy, J.1. Heard Mr. M. Sarania, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Goyal, learned Govt. Advocate, who appears for the respondent.2. The present petition has been filed by the mother of Hajang Brahma, who was a student of VI standard in St. Claret High School, Borjhar. On 03.11.2007, the son of the petitioner died by hanging under suspicious circumstances and his body was found in one of the hostel rooms of the said school. An FIR in connection with the incident was lodged with the Azara Police Station and an Azara Police Station Case No. 163/07 was registered under Section 306 IPC. Inquest over the dead body was conducted by the Magistrate and the post mortem on the body was carried out in the GMC Hospital, Guwahati.3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the investigation of the case is not satisfactory and the post mortem report annexed as Annexure 'B' to the Writ Petition is contrary to the statement of several witnesses, who...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Ram and anr.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 2009ACJ1472

T. Vaiphei, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 20.6.2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shillong awarding a compensation of Rs. 5,62,400 together with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum in favour of claimant-respondent for the death of her husband in a vehicular accident. The award further directed that the compensation with the interest be paid within 45 days of the receipt of the judgment and award.2. The material facts leading to the filing of the appeal may be noticed at the very outset. The vehicular accident was alleged to have occurred when on 22.1.2006 at about 12.30 p.m., one Dwarika Ram, husband of the claimant, was hit by one Maruti van bearing registration No. ML 05-C 9652 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. Dwarika Ram instantly died on the spot. He was 42 years old at the time of the accident and is survived by his wife (the claimant) and his two child...

Rantosh Dhar Vs. Sashi Prakash and anr.

Court: Guwahati

A.B. Pal, J.1 The petitioner is a Fireman posted at Kunjaban Fire Service Station under the Directorate of Fire Services. In this contempt petition he has alleged that the two respondents herein have deliberately disobeyed the directions of this Court contained in orders dated 1.9.2000 and 2.8.2001 passed in Civil Rule No. 296 of 1997 and, therefore, they are liable to be punished for civil contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The first respondent is Shri Sashi Prakash, IAS, who is presently Chief Secretary to the Govt, of Tripura, In-charge of Home Department. The second is R.K. Sukla. IPS, who is the Director of Fire Services, Govt of Tripura. Before proceeding further to examine whether there has been any such contempt of Court, as alleged, it is necessary to notice the directions contained in the two orders aforementioned.2. Civil Rule No. 296 of 1997 was instituted seeking direction to the State Respond...

Kamal Ch. Borah Vs. State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

B.D. Agarwal, J.1. The appellant stands convicted Under Section 366 IPC vide judgment and order dated 31.8.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup in Sessions Case No. 369(K) of 2005. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo 5 years RI and also to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- with default sentence of 1 year RI. Being aggrieved with this conviction and sentence, the convict has preferred this appeal.2. I have heard Mr. N. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri P.C. Gayan, learned PP for the State. Also perused the impugned judgment and the prosecution evidence.3. The prosecution case is that the victim girl was working at a PCO at Serabbhati at Guwahati. On 01.09.2005, while the victim girl was going home, she was allured by the appellant to get married and took her to Mumbai with an attempt to sell her to a prostitute home. However, nearly after a month, she escaped from the custody of the appellant and reached Guwahati on 26.92005 and lod...

Jalal Ahmed Mazumdar Vs. State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

I.A. Ansari, J.1. The principal question, raised in this revision, is as to whether a Sessions Judge can, pending an appeal against an order of conviction and sentence, suspend, besides execution of the sentence, the operation of the order of conviction passed against the appellant. Another equally important question, raised in this revision, is as to whether it is enough for a Court, while exercising power under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. to suspend the operation of the order of conviction, if the appellant shows that the order of conviction would, if not suspended, cause irreparable damage to him or is it necessary, even in such a case, for the court, to ascertain if the order of conviction is prima facie supported by evidence on record? In other words, one of the questions, which needs to be answered, in this revision, is as to whether merit of the appeal is a factor, which needs to be taken into account, while considering the question as to whether, during pendency of an appeal, an or...

Santosh Sarkar and anr. Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh

Court: Guwahati

H. Barua, J.1. Heard Mr. S. Alim and Mr. T. Son, learned Counsel for Shri Santosh Sarkar and Shri Krishna Bahadur Tamang, each being the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 04 (AP)/2007 and No. 09 (AP)/2006 respectively. Also heard Mr. N. Lowang, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, the State of Arunachal Pradesh.2. By this common judgment and order, this Court proposes to dispose of the Criminal Appeal No. 04(AP)/2007 and Criminal Appeal No. 09(AP)/2006 preferred by Shri Santosh Sarkar and Shri Krishna Bahadur Tamang respectively, both appellants, since the facts and the law involved therein are common and similar in nature.3. Both the appellants above named were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tack Court, Basar, Arunachal Pradesh, under Section 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, while appellant Santosh Sarkar was alone tried under Section 376 of the IPC. Both the appellants were convicted under Section 366 read with Section 34 of...

Mohanlal Pradhan Vs. State Bank of India and ors.

Court: Guwahati

H.N. Sarma, J.1. Challenging the legality, validity and justifiability of the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner by the respondent Bank issuing a charge under Memo dated 1.10.1996, the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 30.12.2007, the order of dismissal from service dated 13.8.2003 and the consequent order of dismissal of the departmental appeal of the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed.2. I have heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L. Talukdar, learned Counsel appearing for State Bank of India.3. The brief facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are inter alia that the petitioner was appointed as Cashier-cum-clerk in the State Bank of India on 8.8.1985 and was posted in its Lakhimpur Branch. On 3.8.1992 a raid was conducted at his residence while he was on leave which was followed by another raid on 8.8.1992 in which certain incriminating documents were recovered from his residence. An...

RobIn Dhekial Phukan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Hrishikesh Roy, J.1. Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Rahman, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, who represents the Union of India and Ms. S. Sarma, learned State Counsel, who represents the State Government and its authorities.2. The challenge in the instant case is to an order dated 11.9.2007 passed by District Magistrate, In-Charge, Tinsukia under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter called as the 'Act'), whereby the petitioner, Robin Dhekial Phukan, is ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Act. The detention order was passed when the detenue was lodged in Dibrugarh Jail, in connection with several cases, where he was charged as an accused.3. Mr. Mahajan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that apart from other grounds, the impugned detention order is challenged on the ground that the detaining authority did not, specifically inform the detenu of his right to ...

ikramul Haque @ Ikram HussaIn Vs. State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

H. Barua, J.1. The appellant, Md. Ikramul Haque, @ Ikram Hussain, son of Md. Kasim Ali of Village Muslimghopa under Sipajhar Police Station, District Darrang, was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi under Section 376 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to suffer 7(seven) years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) in default to R.I. for another 6(six) months in Sessions Case No. 16(DM) 1998 corresponding to GR. Case No. 512/1997.2. Challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment so rendered by the learned Sessions Judge preferred this instant appeal on various grounds, which may be summarized as under:(i) For that the impugned judgment and order dated 10.04.2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi is erroneous in as much as bad in the eye of law and facts.(ii) For that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective and came to an erroneous finding on the basis of conjecture an...