Court : Guwahati
Reported in : [2009]151CompCas583(Gauhati)
I.A. Ansari, J.1. By this common judgment and order, I propose to dispose of both these criminal petitions inasmuch as both these petitions have arisen out of the same order, which stands impugned in these criminal petitions, and both have been, on the request made by learned Counsel for the parties, heard together.2. By making these applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the petitioners have sought for setting aside and quashing the order, dated May 30, 2007, whereby cognisance of offences under Sections 406/409/420/120B/34 of the IPC has been taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, and summons have accordingly been directed to be issued against the present petitioners as accused.3. I have heard Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioners, and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the complainant-opposite party. I hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
B.K. Sharma, J.1. By means of this writ petition filed in 2004, the petitioners have made a challenge to the order dated 9.7.1998 passed in O.A. No. 13/1997 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati (hereinafter referred, to as 'the Tribunal').2. According to the petitioners, the impugned order dated 9.7.1998 has been passed ex-parte. While the petitioner No. 2 is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, the petitioner No. 1 is one of its Directors. They are aggrieved by the proceeding in O.A. No. 13/1997 initiated and completed by the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 9.7.1998.3. The occasion for the petitioners to file the instant writ petition on 3.2.2004 arose when the petitioners came to know about the legal notice published in the issue of the newspaper called 'Daily Telegraph' dated 18.11.2003. The specific averment made in Para-5 of the writ petition is that with the publication of the notice, the petitioners came to know that a debt recovery proceeding was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
B.L. Hansaria, J. 1. A case was registered against opposite parties Nos. 1 to 5 under Sections 447/448/323 read with Section 34 IPC. This was pursuant to a first information report lodged on 27-11-79. The accused persons came to be arrested on 2-12-79 and 27-12-79. On charge-sheet being submitted on 18-11-80, the accused persons faced their trial and the learned trial Court held the accused persons guilty under the aforesaid Sections of law., But then the accused were acquitted because of what has been laid down in Section 167(5) of the Cr. P.C. The acquittal order has been assailed by the complainant in this revision.2. The revision came up for hearing before a learned single Judge (Homchoudhuri, J.) before whom the decision rendered by another learned single Judge of this Court (Phukan, J.) in State of Tripura v. Niranjit, (1987) 1 Gauhati LR 231 was relied on on behalf of the accused persons. It has been held in Niranjit that where a charge-sheet is submitted beyond the period of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Ghosh and Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the Union of India and Mr. B. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. C. Paul, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3.2. In present writ petition, the petitioner, the wife of Sri Hebal Abel Koloy alias Holong the detenu has prayed for quashing the detention order dated 19-12-2006 (Annexure 14 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 3, the District Magistrate and Collector, Dhalai District; Ambassa, under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 read with Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act 1980). The said detention order indicates that with a view to prevent the abovementioned detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order within the local lim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
T.N. Singh, J.1. A lifer has challenged his conviction in this appeal preferred from jail raising a basic question. Can this Court put into his basket of rights, judicially secured to his tattered tribe, another vita and pivotal right? Indeed, the right claimed by him is vital and pivotal not only for his freedom from bondage, should this Court hold his confinement to be illegal, but for also other prisoners similarly situate.2. We propose, therefore, to examine first the basic question which indeed has surfaced in this case in the form of a preliminary objection pressed by learned P. P., Assam. Mr. G. Sarma. He drew our attention to the order passed in this appeal on 15-5-82 by which the appeal was admitted 'keeping the question of limitation open.' This Court also ordered issue of notice on the question of limitation. Mr. Sarma submitted that the appellant has not responded to the notice and as such the appeal is not ripe for hearing. The main thrust of his contention was that unles...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
P.G. Agarwal, J.1. Life seems to have become an expendable commodity in a remote village of Uriamguri Baligaon under Gogamukh Police Out Post under Dhakuakhana P.S. where a group of young boys decided to start an organisation under the name of and style of 'All Assam Tiger Force'. The avowed object of the said organisation is not known but as we know all organisations need money to run the same. The members of the said organisation also were in need of money and they decided demanding and collecting ransom as the best way to finance their organisation. Accordingly, it was decided to kidnap two minor boys and on the ill-fated day, that is, on 28.6.1999, while Keshab Taid, son of Bindeswar Taid, aged about 10 years, and Rabindra Taid, son of Nandeswar Taid, aged about 6 years, were playing with their friends, the two accused appellants Jitu Pegu and Paramananda Pegu paid Rs. 5/- to... Krishna Dolley to call Rabindra and Keshab and accordingly, the two boys were called to the spot. The a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.1. By this writ petition, orders of thee District Magistrate, Tamenglong being No. Cri/NSA/02/2005 Tamenglong, the 16th September, 2005 by exercising the powers conferred under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 read with Home Department's Order No. 17(1)/49/80 S(Pt) dated 31-5-2005 for detaining the present petitioner, Shri Yumnam Anand Meitei alias Bocha alias Kora alias Suraj, order of the State Govt. being No. 17(1)/943/2005-S Imphal the 26th September, 2005 for approving the said detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Tamenglong District dated 16-9-2005 and also the order of the Govt. of Manipur being No. 17(1)/943/2005 Imphal the 25th October, 2005 for confirming the detention orders passed by the District Magistrate, Tamenglong District dated 16-9-2005 and also for fixing the period of detention for 12 months from the date of detention had been put to challenge mainly on the grounds that there are inordinate delay ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
U.B. Saha, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the convict appellant challenging the judgment-dated 13.9.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in Sessions Trial No. 10(ST/B) of 1991 whereby and where under the appellant was convicted under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 12 years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer further R.I. for two years. The fine money, if realized, was directed to pay to the victim. The period of detention during trial was set off.2. Heard Mr. D. Dutta, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Counsel for the respondent.3. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of State of H.P. v. Shree Kant Shekari reported in : 2004CriLJ4232 referring to the case of State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja reported in : 2004CriLJ579 , the name is not mentioned to disclose the identity of the victim girl against whom an offence un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
K.N. Saikia, J.1. The petitioner herein impugns the judgment and order dated 7-2-1985 passed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Cachar and Karimganj at Silchar upholding his conviction under Section 279/304-A Indian Penal Code but reducing the sentence to imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default simple imprisonment for two months under Section 304-A, and the imprisonment for 2 months under Section 279 Indian Penal Code, both the sentences being ordered to run concurrently.2. On 30-10-1979 at about 5.30 p.m. the accused petitioner Sri Chiram Mukta Singh while driving the line Bus No. 4331 towards Udharbond from Silchar, knocked down a girl named Laila Begum Choudhury who died on the spot. He did not stop the vehicle on the spot but drove it towards Udharbond Police Station where he surrendered.3. The trial court considering the evidence and materials on record convicted him under the aforesaid sections and sentenced him to R.I. for 6 months under Section 279 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
S. Talapatra, J. 1. By this intra-court appeal, the Union of India and its officers have challenged the judgment and order, dated 05-12-2006 as passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. (C) No.19 of 2000 whereby the learned single Judge declared and directed as under: This court while examining the proceeding as indicated above has found that no fair and reasonable opportunity have been provided to the charged Constable. Such a finding of the court is not reached on the basis of the fact that legal assistance has not provided but on scrutiny of the proceedings as a whole, which has led this court to conclude that fair and reasonable opportunity as envisaged by law have not been provided in the inquiry wherein guilt finding has been recorded by the Inquiry officer. Considered in light of the above discussion, this Court holds that the said finding dated 22-3-99 is liable to be interfered with and accordingly, the said finding is set aside. Consequently, the impugned order of punishment...
Tag this Judgment!