Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. I have heard Mr. N.C. Das, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 4799/2007, and Ms. B.L. Sinha, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State respondents, in WP(C) No. 4799/2007, WP(C) No. 5835/2006, WP(C) No. 5680/2007 and WP(C) No. 7203/2005. I have also heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the private respondent, i.e. respondent No. 4, in WP(C) No. 4799/2007, who is appearing on behalf of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 5835/2006, WP(C) No. 5680/2007 and WP(C)No. 7203/2005.2. By this common judgment and order, I propose to dispose of all the four writ petitions, namely, WP(C) No. 4799/2007, WP(C) No. 5835/2006, WP(C) No. 5680/2007 and WP(C) No. 7203/2005, for, all these writpetitions are closely inter-linked and have, therefore, been, as sought for by the learned Counsel for the parties, heard together.3. Before entering into the discussion of the facts involved in these four writ petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
M.B.K. Singh, J.1. Heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. R. Baruah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. The following facts are ascertained:While the petitioner was serving as a Water Carrier of the 49 Battalion CRPF an enquiry was held as against him on direction of the Commandant of the said Battalion, vide memo No. P-VIII-10/99-49-EC-11, dated 13.11.1999, alleging commission of misconduct under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 by suppressing facts and furnishing false information as regards his involvement in criminal cases in his verification form. The charge framed as against him is as follows:That the said No. 910490073 W/C Sharfraj Khan of F/49 Bn. C.R.P.F. while functioning as Water Carrier during the period from June, 1991 to till date committed an act of misconduct (suppression of facts, breach of trust, furnishing false information/documents) in his capacity as a member of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
H.N. Sarma, J.1. The writ petition WP(C) No. 3282/2006 has been filed by the petitioner Challenging the legality and the validity of the judgment and order dated 15.6.2006 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue in Case No. 115 RA(K)/2005 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner confirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, in Encroachment Case No. 16/2005. Similarly, WP(C) No. 3283/2006 has been filed challenging the decision of the Assam Board of Revenue passed in Case No. 116 RA(K)/2005 upholding the notice of eviction dated 25.5.2005 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup.2. Both these two writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner and the points involved for determination also being common, as prayed for, these writ petitions are heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment and order.3. I have heard Mr. P.C. Deka, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. N. Deka, learned Counsel and Mr. PS. Deka, learned GA, Assam.Mr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. Whether Section 32-A completely bars jurisdiction of the appellate Courts to suspend, by invoking the provisions of Section 389(2), Cr.P.C., the sentence passed against a person following his conviction for an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, 'the NDPS Act')? If the embargo, placed by Section 32-A, on the powers of the appellate Courts to suspend, by invoking its powers under Section 389(1), Cr.P.C., is not absolute, what are the parameters of such power of suspension in respect of a person, who stands convicted and sentenced for having been found to have committed an offence under the NDPS Act? These are the two major questions, which this Misc. Case has raised.2. On being tried, along with two other persons, on a charge, framed under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, for having been allegedly found, on 14-6-2000, in possession of ganja (Cannabis) without any authority of law, the accused-petitioner and the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. By its letter, dated 30.05.2007, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Government of Assam, requested the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, to take action in terms of the provisions of Rule 116 of the Registration Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (in short, 'the ALRR') in respect of 236 Bighas, 3 Kathas and 15 Lechas out of the total land acquired from Beheating Tea Estate, the request for taking action under Rule 116 being made on the ground that out of the said total land acquired from Beheating Tea Estate, land measuring as much as 236 Bighas, 3 Kathas and 15 Lechas is under the occupation of people other than Beheating Tea Estate. Based on the letter, dated 30.05.2007, aforementioned, Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, issued, on 04.06.2007, a notice, addressed to the present petitioner, as proprietor of the said tea estate, to show cause as to why the Grant No. 13/176 ORR, made in respect of the said 236 Bighas, 3 Kathas and 15 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.1. The appellant-accused of this appeal is challenging the judgment passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 89/91 /5/911 5/93/2/94/5/02 convicting the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC and the order dated 29.8.2002 sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment not less than 14 years as required by Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in the computation of 14 years period, the period during which convict had already been in the jail during investigation and trial should be taken and calculated by the appropriate Government for the purposes under Section 428 of the CrPC.2. Heard Mr. Kh. Chonjohn, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-accused as well as Md. Jalaluddin, learned P. P. appearing for the State-respondent.3. The golden thread which runs throughout the cobweb of criminal jurisprudence as administered in India is that nine guilty may escape but one innocent should not suffer. But at the same time no guilty should escape unpunished once th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
B.K. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner, presently languishing in jail, is aggrived by the order of penalty imposed on him, in terms of which, he has not only lost his job as Rifleman but is also serving the sentence of life imprisonment.2. The petitioner was enrolled in the Assam Rifle way back in 1982 (26.5.1982). On the crucial date i.e. the date on which the order of penalty of dismissal from service and life improsonment was passed, he had to his credit 17 years and 27 days of service.3. In an otherwise unblemished service carrier, the petitioner was taken up for a general court-martial in the year 1999, with the charge of committing a civil offence i.e. murder under Section 302 IPC and attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC. The charge sheet (Annexure-A) is qouted below:The accused, No. 41055IF Rfn./Gd Utpal Saikia of 4 Assam Rifles, a person subject to Army Act as Sepoy under Section 4(I) thereof, read with SRO 117 dated 28 Mar 60 SRO 318 dated 06 Dec., 62 as amended by SRO 325 dated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Amitava Roy, J.1. Notices dated 16.12.2006 and 26.4.2007 under Section 13(2) and 13(4) respectively, of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') have been assailed to be transgressive of the mandatory pre requisites embodied in the above provisions of the legislation and thus non est in law. The petitioners are the sureties for the financial accommodation availed by M/s. NAP Agencies Private Limited, Guwahati, District Kamrup. The borrower, however, is not on record. This Court while issuing notice on 23.5.2007 directed maintenance of the status quo of the petitioners property involved.2. I have heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. M. Singh, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. K.K. Bhatra, learned Counsel for the creditor Bank.3. The pleaded assertions constituting the factual edifice deserve to be scripted for better appreciation of the rival submissions.4. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
B.D. Agarwal, J.1. The writ petitioner has been detained under National Security Act, 1980 vide order No. CRIL/NSA/No. 32 of 2007 dated 07.08.2007 issued by the District Magistrate, Imphal West, Manipur. By way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the detenu is challenging the aforesaid detention order.2. We have heard Shri S. Rajeetchandra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.S. Reisang learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State respondents (R-1, 2 and 3). The Union of India (R-4) was represented by Shri N. Ibotombi Singh, learned CGSC. We have also perused the impugned detention order, grounds of detention and other documents filed with the writ petition as well as the relevant files of the detention of the petitioner.3. Shorn of the details, the facts of the case in brief are as follows:The petitioner was initially arrested on 01.08.2007 in connection with Mayang Imphal Police Station Case No. 72(8) 2007 under Section 20 of the Unla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Aftab H. Saikia, J.1. All these three writ appeals having been structured upon identical facts situation gave rise to common question of law and accordingly all of them were being heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. In both the writ appeals namely in W.A. No. 249/06 and W.A. No. 278/06, the writ appellants challenged the impugned common judgment and order dated 21.6.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in a set of writ petitions, i.e. (1) W.P. (C) No. 6839/2005 (Madhab Buragohain and 15 Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors. (2) W.P. (C) No. 5880/2005 (All Assam Unemployed Association represented by its General Secretary, Sri Jiban Rajkhowa v. The State of Assam and Anr. (3) W.P. (C) No. 7175/2005 (Sri Apurba Sarma and 24 Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors.) and (4) W.P. (C) No. 6602/2005 (All Assam Unemployed Association represented by its President, Central Committee, Dr. Asad Hazarika v. State of Assam and Ors. reported in 2006 (3) GLT 462.In W....
Tag this Judgment!