Court : Guwahati
B.P. Katakey, J. 1. The present Writ Application has been filed by Mr. Noklenlemba, father of Late Tiaba Ao who was allegedly died in police custody. By the present writ application, the petitioner prayed for awarding compensation in favour of the wife and the minor children of the deceased as well as to the writ petitioner for the said custodial death and also to fix the responsibility on the guilty officers and to take criminal action against them.2. Heard Mr. Imti Longchar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and also Ms. Y. Longkumer, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents.3. This Court, vide order dated 11.10.2001, while issuing notice of motion directed the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Tuensang to cause an enquiry leading to the custodial death of the said deceased and after recording the evidences, both oral and documentary submit report. Accordingly report dated 21.2.2002 was submitted by Shri L.N. Sema, Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) Tuensang. The w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
V.D. Gyani, Actg. C.J.1. Basic facts of this case are substantially admitted. The only difference is in the nature of defence set up by the respondents, otherwise it is an admitted position that the father of petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 and the husband of petitioner No. 1 was picked up by the army on 13.9.1997.2. While the writ petitioners' claim is that on 13.9.1997 at about 4.00 p.m. a group of army personnel came to the tea stall while Bhupen Choudhury, their father was engaged in his own tea stall, he was asked to go with them to their camp. Handing over the charge of his tea stall to one of his sons, he went with the army personnel. At the same time another person by name Krishna Sarmah was also picked up, who was the manager of another nearby tea stall. When he did not return by night, the petitioners with four other local persons went to Khairabari Army Camp around 9 a.m. They reached at the gate of the army camp and requested the sentry on duty to allow them to meet the Major. An a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
B.D. Agarwal, J.1. Heard Shri Ch. Lokendra learned Counsel for the petitioners and Md. Jallaluddin, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the respondents.2. Both the criminal petitions are admitted for hearing. Considering the urgent nature of the matter and on being consented by the learned Counsel for the parties, both the criminal petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment at the admission stage itself.3. Short facts of the case giving rise to the filing of these criminal petitions are set out below:An FIR was lodged by the Commandant, Home Guards (V/A), Manipur, Imphal to the Porompat Police Station alleging that some Home guard volunteers had forged an order in the name of Dy. Commandant General showing their promotion to the rank of Divisional Commanders from the rank of Senior Platoon Commanders. On internal enquiry, the names of the present petitioners figured as the authors of the alleged promotion order. The FIR was registered as Porompat PS case No. 78 (5) 03 Under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
G. Mehrotra, C.J.1. The petitioner U Join Manick Syiem has tiled this petition challenging the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong. The proceedings arose before the Additional Deputy Commissioner on a report by the officer-ln-charge of the Cherra police station.The case set up by the opposite parties was that U Debindra Nath Khongsit, one of the Ekhot Dorbaris of the Cherra Seimship was in actual possession of the Laitryngew Office of the Cherra Siemship since the 18th November 1957 under the supervision at first of late Myntri Harrison Dohling and then of U Rose Mohan Roy Myntri.On the 12th November 1960 the persons arrayed as Second party numbering 2 to 10 in the petition betel the Additional Deputy Commissioner, at the instance of second party No. 1 who is the petitioner before this Court, entered into the office building by breaking open the lock on the door at 10-30 A.M. The Darbar Siem of the Cherra Siemship on the 16th November 1937 had decided that U D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. By making this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. the petitioner, who was complainant in Complaint Case No. 209/2004, has sought' for, inter alia, setting aside and quashing the judgment and order, dated 2-5-2005, passed, in Criminal Revision No. 6(l)/2005, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, has set aside the order, dated 3-8-2004, passed, in Complaint Case No. 209/2004, whereby the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, took cognizance of offences under Section 420/506/294/34, IPC and directed issuance of processes to the accused named therein.2. The material facts, which have led to the making of the present application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. may be set out as follows:(i) The petitioner herein lodged a complaint, which gave rise to the Complaint Case No. 209/2004 aforementioned, the complainant's case being, briefly stated, thus : The complainant is the proprietor of a business concern, which is run under the name and sty...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Brij Narain J.C.(1) Sri Sagolsem Indramani Singh, Sri R. K. Maipak Sana Singh, Sri Yengmaso and Sri Wahengbam Pralhada Singh have brought this appeal against the order of Sri Niladhawaja Singh, Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar and Magistrate First Class, Manipur dated 12-10-1953 sentencing the convict appellants to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment each, on each of the charges Under Sections 124A and 153A, IPC But the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The appellants had also been charged Under Section 120-B, IPC but they were acquitted under the aforesaid charge.This appeal should, under the provisions of the Code of Crimnial Procedure, 1898, have been filed in the Court of Sessions Judge, Manipur, but as the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been enforced in Manipur under the Merged States (Laws) Act, 1949 and Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950, the provisions of Manipur State Courts' Act, 1947, are applicable where they are against the provisions of the Code of Criminal Proce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Ram Labhaja, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the Politioal Officer, Sadiya Frontier Tract, dated 11th June 1948 by which he acquitted the three accused who are' respondents in this petition and who were tried' under a charge of murder for intentionally causing the death of Mt. Niang, a Khasi lady.2. Mt. Niang was murdered in the early hours of the morning of 12th June 1947. Metilda, who was living with the deceased as her adopted-daughter, was in her room on the night of the occurrence. She reported at 6 A. M. that Lakhi Bangali and Ekadaai, respondents 1 and 2, had committed burglary by breaking open the house and had caused grievious hurt to Mt. Niang, who was alive till then. She died later.3. On 18th June 1947, Metilda took Jogendra K. Chaudhury, Officer-in-Charge, Sadiya Police Station, to the house and pointed out a hole in the wooden post. From this some ornaments and Cash were recovered. She also pointed out the blood stained Dao which was also concealed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
B.B. Deb, J. 1. On a reference under Section 395(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, received from the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in connection with Sessions Trial No. 48(NT/D) of 2001, this Criminal Reference Petition has been registered. 2. The facts leading to the registration of this case could be summarised thus: On the basis of a chargesheet involving five accused persons including accused Shri Gopesh Debnath, appears to be a juvenile, in the commission of offence punishable under Section 376(1), 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., the learned Magistrate took cognizance and committed the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, After thorough perusal of the materials available and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 376(1) of the I.P.C. against the juvenile accused Shri Gopesh Debnath and under Section 323/34 I.P.C. against five accused persons including ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Reported in : 1956CriLJ249
1. This is an application in revision on behalf of Ukakhasia against the order of the Senior Extra Assistant Commissioner, Imphal dated 23-12-1954 by which it has been held that the case under Section 161/116, I.P.C. started against the petitioner by the Jiribam Police on the complaint of the opposite party No. 3 Shri Naba kumar Singh, has been held to be triable by the senior E, A. C, and not by a Special Judge as provided by Section 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (Act XLVI of 1952).2. It appears from the complaint dated 15-3-1954 that according to the prosecution the petitioner went to the quarters of the opposite party No. 3 at about 9 A.M. on 15-3-1954 and told him that he had filed a petition in the court of She opposite party No. 8 a week back for getting settlement at Latingkhal Makha. The opposite party No. 3 told the petitioner that the petition might be lying with the Amin and an enquiry might be made in the office, but the petitioner refused to leave the room and offere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Reported in : 1956CriLJ249
ORDERBrij Narain, J.1. This is an application in revision on behalf of Ukakhasia against the order of the Senior Extra Assistant Commissioner, Imphal dated 23-12-1954 by which it has been held that the case under Section 161/116, I.P.C. started against the petitioner by the Jiribam Police on the complaint of the opposite party No. 3 Shri Naba kumar Singh, has been held to be triable by the senior E, A. C, and not by a Special Judge as provided by Section 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (Act XLVI of 1952).2. It appears from the complaint dated 15-3-1954 that according to the prosecution the petitioner went to the quarters of the opposite party No. 3 at about 9 A.M. on 15-3-1954 and told him that he had filed a petition in the court of She opposite party No. 8 a week back for getting settlement at Latingkhal Makha. The opposite party No. 3 told the petitioner that the petition might be lying with the Amin and an enquiry might be made in the office, but the petitioner refused to leave...
Tag this Judgment!