Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. Can an Army authority, in exercise of its powers under Section 125 of the Army Act, 1950, seek, for the purpose of investigation or trial, the custody of a person, who is subject to the Army Act, but in the custody of a criminal Court on accusation of having committed an offence, which is triable under the Army Act too, if the case, in connection with which the person is in custody, is under investigation by police or under an inquiry as contemplated by Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? When a case lodged against a person, who is subject to the Army Act, 1950. is still pending for investigation by the police, whether it is permissible for a Court of ordinary criminal justice to hand over to the Army authorities, mentioned in Section 125 of the Army Act, the custody of the person, who is subject to the Army Act, but is in custody of the ordinary criminal Court on accusation of having committed an offence, which is also punishable under the Army Act, 1950,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Jasti Chelameswar, C.J.1. The sole accused in Sessions Case No. 71(K)/2000 is found guilty of offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC and convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati by judgment dated 14.11.2006. The learned Sessions Judge thought it fit to award capital punishment to the accused obviously for the offence under Section 302 IPC. It is to be mentioned here that the learned Sessions Judge did not record to have awarded any punishment insofar as the charge under Section 201 IPC is concerned, though the accused is also found guilty of the said offence. For the sake of completion of the narration of facts, it is to be mentioned here that though the accused was also charged and tried under Section 377 IPC, the learned Sessions Judge did not record a finding of guilt.2. In view of the fact that the learned Sessions Judge chose to award the capital punishment, the matter is placed before this Court for confirmation of the punishment as required under Section 366 CrP...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
R.B. Misra, J.1. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Ms. S. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. This is an application filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the Criminal proceeding in Case No. C.R. 62 of 2007 under Sections 166/323/506/448 of IPC and the order dated 2.4.2007 taking cognizance by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala in the said Criminal proceeding.3. Ms. S. Choudhury, learned Counsel has appeared and submitted that though she has filed vakalatnama along with Mr. D. Guha, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, however she is not willing to assist the court today. She has only been instructed by Mr. Guha to pray for adjournment of the case. However, the Court specifically asked Ms. S. C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Amitava Roy, J.1. The petitioner, an officer in the Assam Judicial Service in the instant proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has questioned the legality and validity of the decision of this Court on the administrative side, to terminate his probation and pending issuance of the consequential Government notification to that effect to restrain him from discharging judicial works, as contained in the letters dated 22/12/2006 and 11/1/2007 (Annexures 9,8 and 7 to the writ petition). It has been submitted by the learned State Counsel that the related issues being sub-judice before this Court further follow up steps have been deferred. The termination of the petitioner's probation, therefore, has not yet been given effect to though he stands relieved of the judicial duties as on date.2. We have heard Mr. PK Goswami, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. BM Choudhury and Mr. S. Bharali, Advocates for the petitioner, Mr. PK Mushary, Sr. Government Advocate for the State responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. When a person makes an application, having forged signatures thereon, to a revenue court seeking mutation of his name along with the name of the person, whose signature stands forged, in the record of rights, can a criminal court take cognizance of the offence of forgery, which such an applicant might have committed, without acomplaint, in writing, of the revenue court, where the application was made or of a court to which the revenue court is subordinate? This is the moot question, which the present Criminal Petition has raised. This question, in turn, gives rise to yet another question and the question is this: Whether the bar in taking cognizance, created by Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Code'), applies only when the offence has been committed with respect to a document after the document was already produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court (i.e, during the time, when the document was in custodia legis), ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
M.B.K. Singh, J.1. Heard Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. K.P. Sarma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II of the North Eastern Electric Power Corporation (in short NEEPCO), vide an order dated 8.4.88 and he joined his place of posting, the office of the Executive Engineer at Doyang Hydro Electric Project (in short DHEP), Wokha, Nagaland on 27.4.88.3. On 15.11.90, he filed an application to the concerned authority of the Corporation praying for transferring him from DHEP to some other place on the ground that while working there, there was risk of his life because of lack of security. In the said application, he cited instances of assault and threat made by a local contractor.4. Thereafter, he was posted as a Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-I on in-charge basis at Kopili Hydro Electr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. On receiving a report submitted, under Section 173(2) of the Code, by the police, on completion of investigation of a case, disclosing commission of offence(s) by one or more persons, if a Chief Judicial Magistrate makes over the case for disposal to another Magistrate, subordinate to him, does such making over of the case necessarily denote that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence(s) and, having so taken cognizance, made over the case for enquiry or trial to the magistrate to whom the case was sent for disposal If a Judicial Magistrate issues process without condoning the delay, when taking cognizance stands barred by a period of limitation as prescribed in Section 468 of the Code, shall the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code, necessarily and invariably, set aside and quash not only the order taking cognizance, but also the first information report or the complaint, as the case may be, and/or the police ...
Tag this Judgment!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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Jasti Chelameswar, C.J.1. Heard Ms. M Deb, learned Counsel appearing for he petitioner. Also heard Ms. B Goyal, learned Govt. Advocate who represents the State respondents.2. The present petition has been filed seeking direction of the Court for conducting an enquiry into the killing of the petitioner's son Prakash Deka @ Mridul who was killed in police firing on 8-8-2007 and also for directions for paying compensation to the petitioner and for taking appropriate actions against the guilty police officers.3. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, counter affidavit on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldoi of Darrang District is filed.4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's son died on account of police firing, while he was driving accompanied by six others and proceeding in a Maruti Van. It is not in the dispute that in the process one of the other passengers Smti Gita Kalita also sustained a bullet injury in her leg. It is also not in dispute that the vehic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. The writ petitioner is an Association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 having its registered office at Silchar within the State of Assam. The petitioner Association claims to represent the non-Mizo/non-tribal traders of Assam having business in Mizoram, particularly, in the districts of Aizawl and Lunglei. Most of the members of the petitioner Association, it is claimed, are permanent residents of the three districts in the Barak Valley of the State of Assam i.e. Cachar, Karimganj and Hailakandi. In the present writ application, the petitioner Association seeks to challenge the constitutional validity of the Eastern Bengal Frontier Regulation, 1873, hereinafter referred to as the Inner Line Regulation. The guidelines for the enforcement of the said Inner Line Regulation framed by the State of Mizoram in exercise of powers conferred by Section 2 of the aforesaid Regulation and published on 1.9.2006 has also been challenged in the present writ ap...
Tag this Judgment!