Guwahati Court June 2008 Judgments

Sukla Deb and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Hrishikesh Roy, J.1. Heard Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Addl. Solicitor General of India, who represents the respondents.2. The wife, three minor children and the mother of Late Nandan Deb are before this Court seeking direction for compensation for the death caused to Nandan Deb, aged about 32 years, by intentional firing by constable Mahadev of the BSF, who was on duty at the relevant point of time along with his other colleagues. The right of private defence, claimed by the accused constable Mahadev, have not been accepted in the General Security Force Court (GSF Court) proceedings and as per the finding given by the GSF Court dated 10.3.2007, the charge against constable Mahadev of having caused the death of deceased Nandan Deb by shooting him with his service rifle was established.It may be relevant to extract the charge levelled against the accused constable:Charge SheetThe accused No. 89131037 Const. Mah...

Lila Bordoloi and ors. Vs. Assam State Publication Board and ors.

Court: Guwahati

H.N. Sarma, J.1. The legality and validity of the action of the respondents/authorities in compulsorily retiring the petitioners from their respective services under the Publication Board of Assam is the subject matter Of controversy in this batch of writ petition.2. I have heard Mr. U.K. Nair and Mr. A. K. Bora, learned Counsel for the respective petitioners. Also heard Mr. A.K. Phukan, learned Advocate General, Assam along with Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondents.3. Briefly narrated relevant facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of this batch of writ petitions which are heard analogously having given rise to common question for adjudication, are as follows:In WP(C) No. 5914/04, Mr. Lila Bordoloi, the petitioner, was initially appointed as. Proof Reader on 26.04.75 by the Assam State Publication Board (for short 'the Publication Board') and was promoted to the rank of Circulation Officer in due course of time. The petitioner, Mr. Dwipen Sharma, in...

Lachit Bordoloi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Aftab H. Saikia, J.1. Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, Mr. A. Choudhury, Mr. R. Ali, Mr. P.K. Das and Mr. N.J. Das, learned Counsel representing the petitioner as well as Mr. P.S. Deka and R.K. Adhikary, learned State Counsel on behalf of the State of Assam/respondents No. 2 to 5 as well as Mr. D. Choudhury, learned Central Government Counsel (for short, 'the C.GC.') for the Union of India.2. The legality and correctness of the detention order dated 29.3.08 issued by the District Magistrate, Kamrup Metropolitan District, Guwahati in exercise of power conferred upon him under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short, 'the Act') detaining the petitioner/detenu (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') have been assailed in this Habeas Corpus Petition preferred by the detenu.3. The order dated 29.3.2008 reads as under:Perused the report submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, DSB City Guwahati vide letter under Memo No. DSD/ City/XI(A) SPC/08/2197/C dated 20.3.08 along...

Nalini Bordoloi and ors. Vs. District Collector

Court: Guwahati

B.P. Katakey, J.1. This appeal by the owners of the land acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) is against the common judgment and order dated 11-4-2005 passed by the learned Reference Court dismissing the Land Acquisition (Miscellaneous) Cases which were registered on the basis of the reference made by the Collector Under Section 18 of the Act. The present appeal is concerning L.A. (Misc.) Case Nos. 54/97, 56/97, 60/ 97, 63/97, 66/97, 70/97 and 76/97.2. An acquisition proceeding was initiated by issuing a notification Under Section 4(1) of the Act by the Government of Assam in Revenue Department in the Official Gazette on 9-6-82 intending to acquire a plot of land measuring 61 Bigha 0 Katha 9 Lecha in village Bahatia under Saruchari Mouza of Jorhat Sub-Division of erstwhile Sibsagar District (now, Jorhat District) for construction of a bye-pass of the National Highway No. 37 by registering LA Case No. 5/81-82. the declaration Under Section...

Lachit Bordoloi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 2008(IV)GLT677

Aftab H. Saikia, J.1. Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, Mr. A. Choudhury, Mr. R. Ali, Mr. P.K. Das and Mr. N.J. Das, learned Counsel representing the petitioner as well as Mr. P.S. Deka and R.K. Adhikary, learned State Counsel on behalf of the State of Assam/respondents No. 2 to 5 as well as Mr. D. Choudhury, learned Central Government Counsel (for short, 'the C.GC.') for the Union of India.2. The legality and correctness of the detention order dated 29.3.08 issued by the District Magistrate, Kamrup Metropolitan District, Guwahati in exercise of power conferred upon him under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short, 'the Act') detaining the petitioner/detenu (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') have been assailed in this Habeas Corpus Petition preferred by the detenu.3. The order dated 29.3.2008 reads as under:Government of Assam.Office of the District MagistrateKamrup (Metropolitan) District, Guwahati(Confidential Branch)OrderPerused the report submitted by the Senior Su...

James Sebastian and anr. Vs. State of Assam and anr.

Court: Guwahati

I.A. Ansari, J.1. What is a 'complaint' under the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Code')? How does a 'complaint' differ from a 'police report' as defined in the Code? Whether a report, submitted to a Judicial Magistrate by police on completion of investigation, which commenced on the basis of a direction issued by a Magistrate in exercise of the latter's powers under Section 202 of the Code, can also be regarded as a 'police report' as defined in the Code? What is 'cognizance'? When a 'complaint' is made to a Magistrate alleging commission of a cognizable offence, is the Magistrate bound to take 'cognizance' of the offence, which such a 'complaint' may disclose, or has the Magistrate any discretion to direct registration of the 'complaint' as a First Information Report (in short, 'the FIR') and investigation into the offence as may have been alleged, in the 'complaint,' to have been committed. When the Magistrate applies his mind to the contents of a 'complaint' in order to...

Sultan Ali and ors. Vs. State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

I.A. Ansari, J.1. By making this application under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioners, who are accused in G.R. Case No. 353/07, under Sections 147/148/149/323/326/307 IPC, have sought for setting aside and quashing, inter alia, the order, dated 18.04.2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bilashipara, whereby warrants of arrest were directed to be issued against the. accused petitioners.2. Heard Mr. M. U. Mondal, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and Mr. B.S. Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.3. The ground of challenge to the impugned order is that no summons was served upon the accused-petitioners before the warrants of arrest were directed to be issued. What is also submitted, on behalf of the accused-petitioners, is that the learned Court below has assigned no reason for directing issuance of warrants of arrest against the present petitioners as accused.4. While considering the present Criminal Revision, what needs to be b...

Khukan Debnath Vs. State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

A. Hazarika, J.1. The convict herein as appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibragarh in Sessions Case No. 93/2000 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (For short the 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default further imprisonment for 3 (three) months.2. Prosecution story as set up during the trial in a nutshell is as follows:On 11th June, 1999 at about 3.30 p.m., Mamun Debnath (hereinafter referred to as deceased), wife of Khukan Debnath, the appellant herein, caught fire in her person. It was suspected that her husband has caused the incident by pouring kerosene over her person and setting her afire. The deceased was rushed to Assam Medical College Hospital, Dibrugarh, for treatment wherein the deceased made a dying declaration before PW 4, Dr. Parthapratim Dutta implicating the appellant and the deceased b...

Upendra Nath Deka Vs. Haladhar Das

Court: Guwahati

I.A. Ansari, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order, dated 31.03.2008, passed, in Criminal Appeal No. 46 (K)/2006, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 4, Kamrup, Guwahati, has dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order, dated 05.07.2006, passed, in Complaint Case No. 63672004, by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, convicting the accused-petitioner under Section 420 IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and also pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and, in default of fine, suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.2. Heard Ms. S.D. Baruah, learned Counsel for the petitioner.3. The case of the persecution, as unfolded, at the trial, was, in brief, thus: On 04.09.2001, the accused took an amount of Rs. 75,000/- from the complainant with an assurance that the accused, who is an employee of the Flood Control Department, would arrange a job for the son of the compla...

Sakhitombi Devi Vs. Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India ...

Court: Guwahati

T. Nandakumar Singh, J.1. By this writ petition, the writ petitioner, 1 who is an unfortunate widow, is assailing the decision of the Manager (PS/SSS/Claims) vide letter dated 23.12.1996 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) to the writ petitioner, wherein Life Insurance Corporation of India had denied the claim of the petitioner for the sum assured amounting to Rs. 1 lakh under the Policy No. 490445746 through Churachandpur Branch of Life Insurance Corporation of India and also the order/letter dated 4.11.1998 (Annexure-D to the writ petition) for upholding the repudiation of the said claim for the sum assured by the Silchar Divisional Office of Life Insurance Corporation of India.2. Heard Mr. S.T. Kom, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. T. Gogonchandra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.3. A short factual matrix of the petitioner's case leading to the filing of the present writ petition is required to be recapitulated for deciding the matter in issue...