Court : Guwahati
Ram Labhaya J.1. The petitioner was found guilty of a contravention of Section 12 (1), Assam Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1946, and in consequence was convicted Under Section 7 of Act sxiv [24] of 1946. He was sentenced to pay a fine of BS, 1000, or, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. On appeal, the conviction and the sentence were maintained. The accused has come up on revision.2. The prosecution case was that on 22nd February 1947 the petitioner was found standing by the side of a truck near the Deopani Tea Estate on the Barpathar-Dimapur Road. The driver of the truck, a Maaipuri, was also there. The truck at that time was not in working order, Dambraudhar Hazarika (P.W. 1) came there in a Jeep, The owner of the Jeep was with him, Dambraudhar is President of the Vigilance Committee of Sarupathar. He examined the contents of the truck and found that it contained IS baga of yarn and 42 boxes of matches. He asked the driver of the truck to take those art...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Ram Labhaya, J.1. This is a petition of revision aria-ing out of proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C. The proceedings started on an application put in by the petitioner in the Court of Mr. A. C. Nandi, Magistrate, 1st Class, Bilohar. The learned Magistrate was satisfied from police report that there was danger of a branch of the peace. After necessary enquiry he came to the conclusion that the property in dispute, was in possession of Manan Singh respondent on the date of the preliminary order. He, therefore, deolared that respondent was entitled to remain in possession till evicted in due course of law, and forbade all disturbances of his possession. He further directed that the sale proceeds of the crop shall go to the respondent and that the 1st party, viz., the petitioner, shall pay Es. 10 as compensation to the 2nd party, viz., Manan Singh respondent. Eaghuuath Sarma, the petitioner, put in a revision petition in the Court of the Sessions Judge, A. V. D. He rejected the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Ram Labhaya J.1. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of the learned Chief Justice and my learned brother Thadani J. heard the petitions of 14 persons detained by District Magistrates under the Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act 1947 (Assam Act v. [5] of 1947). The petitions were all Under Section 491, Criminal P.C. The order of the Bench disposed of 12 petitions. In the case of the two petitioners, namely, Bijoy Kumar Das and Sukbomoy Chakravarty, the learned Judges could not agree as to the appropriate orders and directed that these cases be placed before a third Judge. The decision of two more petitions under 6. 491, Criminal P.C. turns on the same question which arises in the aforesaid petitions. These are NoSection 17 and 19 of 1948 and they have also been included in the reference. This order will dispose of all the four petitions.2. Both Bijoy and Sukhomoy were ordered to be detained by separate orders of the District Magistrate of Goalpara, The orders were passed on si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. The appellant Akloo Mia has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, A. V. D., under Section 301, part 2, Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. The case was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge with the aid of assessors who were divided in their opinion.2. The facts of the case are these: It appears that there was a dispute over the possession of certain charbharat land situated in the village of Peladahar, which had been taken on lease by Haji Hasan Mia and his sons and nephews and was in their possession for some 7 or 8 years. To the east of this land was the periodic pafcta land belonging to another Hasan Mia. Haji Hasan Mia and his sons and nephews grew paddy on the land leased by them.3. On 24th December 1917, the deceased Abdua Sattar and one Abdul Samad, Lalu Mia, Abdul Salam, and some other persons were gathering paddy in the morning over a certain area of the disputed land. In the afternoon, Abdul Samad noticed that one J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Assam-Valley Districts under the provisions of B. 307, Criminal P. C, in a case tried by him with the aid of a jury which found the accused Umaoharan Pal and Kalicharan Pal not guilty by a majority verdict of 3; 2.2. The learned Sessions Judge disagreed with the verdict of the majority in so far as it related to the accused Kalieharan Pal, and made the present reference.3. While agreeing with the verdict of the jury in regard to the accused Umacharan Pal, we have been informed that the learned Sessions Judge did not pass a formal order of acquittal. This failure, however, has not prejudiced the accused Umacharan Pal who was on bail during the trial and was not remanded to custody after the verdict of the jury.4. Mr. Barman for the Crown has supported the reference and has argued that the accused Kalicharan Pal is guilty of an offence either under Section 304, Penal Code, or under Section 325, Penal Code, and that the verdict...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. This purports to be an appeal under the provisions of Section 417, Criminal P. 0., 'The material facts briefly are as follows: The accused Mahendra Chandra De is the station master of Haibargaon Railway station of the Assam Railway. A police officer submitted a report against him to the effect that he bad demanded a bribe of Rs. 50 from one Sudhir Pandit for arranging for a wagon for the said Sudhir Pandit. On this report, process was issued against the accused and e was placed on his trial before a Magistrate of the First Class at Nowgong. The learned Magistrate recorded evidence and then delivered a judgment in which heheld first—that under the provisions of Section 6, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, the Court was not entitled to take cognisance of the offence without sanction and that no sanction had been accorded to the prosecution and therefore, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. But he proceeded to hold from the facts and circumstan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Thadani, J.1. We have before us for our consideration petitions of U detenus made under the provisions of Section 491, Criminal P. C. Of these detenues Fazal Rahman, Jyotirmoy Chakravarty, Nurul Shekh, and Bipin Chakravarty have been released by the Provincial Government and we are not invited to give out decision in regard to their detention.2. Against the petitioners, Tarun Sen Deka, Mohanlal Mukherjee, Bipin Dalai, Kamini Sarma, Arbindo Ghosh, Nirendra Lahiri, Upendra Chandra Das, Mohibuddin Musi fresh orders for their detention have been passed after they had been released and in view of our order passed in Nirendra Mohan v. Government of Assam, Criminal Mis. case No. 15 of 1948 on 19th November 1948, (A.I.R. (36) 1949 Assam 87) their detention must be held to be legal and the validity of the period of their detention has not been questioned in view of Section 3, Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act (Act V [5] of 1947), 1947.3. It is only the ease of the remaining two detenues, n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Lodge, C.J.1. This Rule was issued under the pro-visions of 8. 491, Criminal P. 0. at the instance of a number of persons detained in the District Jail at Jorhat. The material facts are these:2. The petitioners were arrested on 22nd May 1948 and placed in custody. On 6th June 1948, the Deputy Commissioner, under the provisions of 8. 2 (2). Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, directed that they be detained for a period of two months. On July 20th, the Government of Assam passed an order directing that the period of detention be extended. Towards the end of July, this Court delivered judgment in the case of Chyne v. The Government of Assam, and held that the Government had no power to extend the period of detention in such a manner. There, after on 9th August 1948 the present petitioners moved this Court contending that their further detention under the orders of Government, dated 20th July 1948, was illegal. A Rule was accordingly issued on the Chief Secretary to the Government of A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Thadani, C.J. 1. This is a Second Miscellaneous Appeal under Rule 26 of the Khasi Stales (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950 from an appellate order of the learned Deputy Commissioned K. & J. Hills, who reversed the decision of the Durbar of the Siem of Mylliem which had in its turn reversed the decision of the elders of Bhoilasa who had decreed the suit of one Ka Jesi. 2. Before we proceed to consider the points raised before us, it is necessary to reproduce the geneological table which is as follows : KA JATRI MYNTLAND (deceased) _________________|__________________ | | Ka Shin (deceased) Ka Sajai (deceased) | | _________|_______________ U Mitian (Defendant 1) | |Ka Jesi (Plaintiff) Ka Pheli (deceased) | | Ka Del Ka Sbab 3. Mr. Gupta for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection namely that no appeal lies to this court under Rule 26 of the Khasi States (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950. His contention is that the appeal before us is a third appeal and that there ...
Tag this Judgment!