Court : Guwahati
S.K. Dutta, C. J.1. This is a revision petition. The petitioner's case is that he had been serving in the Indian Army as a Commissioned Officer for 23 years and pensioned off since 1st December, 1967. In the year 1960 the Central Government decided to construct roads on the northern corners of India with one of the headquarters at Tezpur under the command of Brigadier O.M. Mani, Chief Engineer and with such headquarters at Dibrugarh, Along and other places in North East Frontier Agency under En gineer Commanders. The petitioner was one of such Engineer Commanders and posted at Dibrugarh from November 1960 to 2nd April 1962 under the said Chief Engineer, as a Division Commander, local purchases of stores required for the construction of roads, bashas, bridges and culverts, materials like bricks, broken bricks, bamboos thatch, timbers and sand etc. These materials had to be removed from Dibrugarh to Lekhabali, Sonarighat, Deo-righat and other places beyond the river Brahmaputra and to b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
P.K. Goswami, J.1. This Criminal revision is directed against the petitioner's conviction under Section 4 of the Assam Liquor Prohibition Act, for consuming liquor in the prohibited area, and sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default one month's rigorous imprisonment.2. Briefly the prosecution case is that on the night of 22nd of March. 1964 at about 9 P. M. the accused petitioner was found in a drunken state at the platform of Jakhalabandha Railway Station. He was caught by the Excise staff and then produced before the Medical Officer at Silghat Dispensary, who examined him then and there, and found as follows:(1) Smell of alcohol in breath found.(2) Conjunctiva congested,(3) Gait unsteady.(4) Speech incoherent.In the opinion of the doctor, the accused took alcohol in sufficient quantity as to make him intoxicated.3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and stated that he did not take liquor. The learned Magistrate examined the doctor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
P.K. Goswami, J.1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an older dated 22nd September, 1968 passed by the General Manager, N.F. Rly informing the President of the North-East Frontier Rly. Mizdoor Union and the General Secretary of the said union by telegram and a letter of the same date that the recognition of the Union was withdrawn.2. The petitioner's case is that it is a Trade Union of non-gazetted employees, registered under the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926 and that it was accorded recognition by the Railway Administration as early as 1958. The petitioner states that it decided to call a token strike of its members on the 19th September, 1968 as per decision of the All India Rail way men Federation and the Joint Council of Action. On 3rd September, 1968, the petitioner gave notice of a taken strike on the 19th September, 1968 to the General Manager of the N.F. Railway as also to the conciliation officer under Section 22 of the Industr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
P.K. Goswami, J. 1. This reference involving two applications, one under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referredto as 'the old Act') and the other under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the new Act'), is made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Calcutta, in respect of the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. The questions which have been referred to us may be set out: '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the notices to show cause under Section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 were not validly served on the assessee ? (2) If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, then whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the proceedings under Section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
P.K. Goswami, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus and directed against the order of detention passed on 2nd March 1968 by the District Magistrate, Kamrup, under Section 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The facts appearing in the petition as well as in the counter-affidavit are as follows:The petitioner was arrested by the Police on 26th February 1968 at a place called Darrangagiri, Goalpara, under Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He was later taken to Gauhati under custody on 28th February 1968 and was lodged in Gauhati Jail. As many as five police cases were started against him by the Police while he was in detention. One o the cases ended in final report and the petitioner was discharged. While he was still in detention, he was served with the order of detention under Section 3(2) of the Act issued by the District Magistrate and the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
P.K. Goswami, J.1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment of conviction under Section 5(a) of the Assam Opium Prohibition Act (Assam Act XXII of 1947), hereinafter called the 'Assam Act', and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for another two months. This is the modified sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, in place of the earlier sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for two months, passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sibsagar in the original trial.2. The facts are very brief. The Excise Inspector of Sonari accompanied by the Assistant Excise Inspector and some constables searched the house of the petitioner, hereinafter called the accused, on 13th October, 1963 and recovered from inside his dwelling house one 'Tema' containing six tolas of opium. The opium was seized by the Excise Inspector and the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Sanjeeva Row Nayudu, C.J.1. In all these Civil Rules, the petitioners are the Maud Tea & Seed Company Ltd., Calcutta, and its director. In the petitioners' tea garden, tea bushes are grown and maintained and tea leaves are plucked from them and then carried to the factory maintained by the petitioners' estate for the purpose of being put through a manufacturing process, at the end of which the tea fit for marketing is produced. The income derived by the sale of the manufactured tea, therefore, comprises partly of the income derived from the agricultural produce and partly by the manufacturing process through which the tea leaves are put to until they reach the final shape and sold as tea in the market. The petitioners were charged to income-tax on the forty per cent. of the income and to agricultural income-tax under the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939 (Act IX of 1939) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Assam Act'), in respect of the balance of income of sixty per cent. under R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
C. Jagannadhacharyulu, J.C.1. In all the above cases referred to this Court either by the Additional Sessions Judge or by the Principal Sessions Judge, Manipur, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the common question which arises for determination is whether the affidavits, sworn before any Magistrate, other than the concerned District Magistrate or S.D.M. or Magistrate First Class, before whom proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are pending, should not be considered by him in coming to a conclusion under Section 145(4), Cr.P.C.2. In the above cases, affidavits, sworn before Magistrate, either First Class or Second Class in Manipur, were filed in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. before the S.D.Ms. in the various cases. They were not sworn before the concerned S.D.Ms. before whom the proceedings were pending. The S.D.Ms. relied on them and passed orders under Section 145(4) Cr.P.C. The aggrieved parties assailed the orders in revision before the Sessions Court, Manipur. The Additiona...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
C. Jagannadhacharyulu, J.C.1. This is a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner Shri Gauranga Chandra Deb of Joynagar Agartala, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ quashing the order No. 13 Col.-L.C.-60 dated 25.2.1960 of the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, Shillong, with his office at Agartala for the State of Tripura, confiscating 41 gold bars weighing 426 tolas, 3 annas and 3 ratis under Section 67(8) of the Sea Customs Act (Act VIII of 1878) read with Section 19 of the same Act, as made applicable by Section 23 (A) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (Act VII of 1947), directing the confiscation to be absolute in terms of Section 23(A) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act read with Section 183 of the Sea Customs Act and further imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000 under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act and to quash the Criminal Proceedings in Cr. Case No. 657 of 1959 pending before the S.D.M., Sada...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
C. Jagannadhacharyulu, J.C.1. This ease arises out of a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manipur, under Section 488, Cr. P.C. to set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-Imphal East, Manipur, dated 9-3-65 passed by him in N. F. I. R. case No. 309 of 1964 under Section 145 (6) Cr. P.C. declaring that -the-respondents were in possession of the disputed land at the relevant time, that they are entitled to the possession thereof until they are evicted therefrom in due course of law and forbidding all disturbance of such possessions until such eviction.2. The brief facts of the case which led to the reference in question are as follows : : There are about 6 1/2 paris of land in Matai village, covered by Pattas No. 1/282, 2/106 and 3/136 Imphal East. The case of the petitioners herein is that the petitioners Nos. 1, 6 and 7 purchased the said land in 1957 from the heirs of late Sir Churachand Singh, the Maharajah of Manipur under a registered sale deed, that the...
Tag this Judgment!