Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1980CriLJ789
ORDERA.M. Bhattacharjee, Actg. C.J.1. Having heard Mr. D.C. Roy, the learned Advocate for the accused-petitioner and the learned Advocate General appearing for the State and having examined the records of the case I am satisfied that this revisional applicantion should be allowed.2. The petitioner is one of the three accused persons in a Criminal case under Sections 363, 366 and 376, Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Sessions Judge at Gangtok. In Sikkim the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, with some modifications, is still the law and in accordance with such modifications, the cases triable by the Court of Session are tried according to the procedure for the trial of warrant cases and therefore, after a charge is framed on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is followed by cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses by or on behalf of the accused. In this case, after the close of the prosecution case before charge on 1-9-1979, charges were framed by the learned Sessions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1981CriLJ60
ORDERA.M. Bhattacharjee, Actg. C.J.1. The impugned proceeding under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Cede clearly goes to show how this well-known section, so frequently resorted to by the people and also by the public authorities, is very often abused by improper and indiscriminate user. But before I proceed to consider and pronounce upon the legality and the propriety of this proceeding in some details, I will have to dispose of some of the preliminary objections to the maintainability of this revisional application raised by and on behalf of the State and the other respondent.2. It has been urged that this revisional application is not maintainable as the impugned order under Section 144. Criminal Procedure Code has already come to an end by efflux of time. If a proceeding under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code is, as it cannot but be, a judicial proceeding, the order passed therein cannot but attract the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, if such jurisdiction is invoked ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1979CriLJ310
ORDERA.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. The accused-appellant has been convicted on his own plea of guilty to a charge under Section 25 (1) of the Arms Act, 1959, which has been extended to Sikkim by the President by a notification under the provisions of Oreder (n) of Article 371F of the Constitution of India on 16th May, 1975, and enforced on 1st Aug., 1976. The charge was that the accused on or about 19th Feb.. 1978, had in his possession a revolver and one live cartridge without any licence therefor and the accused has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. If the Amu Act, 1959, ii validly operative in Sikkim as a result of its extension to and enforcement in Sikkim under the provisions of Article 371F (n) of the Constitution, then the conviction must be maintained and the appeal must be dismissed as there is and can be no other challenge to the conviction in this case.3. Under Section 412 of Cr.P.C. 1898, which is still now the law relating to Criminal Procedure in S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1979CriLJ610
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. The accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code in five criminal cases being Criminal Cases Nos 50, 53 54. 55 and 56 of 1971 and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for various terms, which are to run concurrently, and also to pay fines of various amounts on the charge that being a Mondal appointed to collect land-revenue and as such being entrusted with the amounts, so collected, he committed criminal breach of trust in respect of such amounts. As the alleged breach of trust related to five different periods in five different years, not amenable to one trial, five different cases were launched and all of them, as already noted, have ended in conviction and the accused has preferred five separate appeals in respect of those five cases. This judgment will govern all the five appeals, being Criminal Appeals Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of 1977.2. The prosecution examined one Dhanlal Rai in all these five cases as one of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1978CriLJ1650
ORDERA.M. Bhattacharjee, Actg. C.J.1. I have heard Mr. A. P. Chatterjee, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and the learned Advocate-General appearing for the State and have examined the records of the case and I am of opinion that the revisional application should be dismissed.2. The facts of the case, shorn of such details as are not necessary for the present purpose, are that on receipt of a complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioners and two others, the learned District Magistrate, without examining the complainant or his witnesses, decided, by his order dated 5th Aug., 1977, to hold enquiry and fixed 17th Aug., 1977, as the date therefor, but on the date so fixed, that is on 17th Aug., 1977, the learned District Magistrate by order transferred the case to another Magistrate for proceeding according to law. The transferee Magistrate on receipt of the complaint fixed 23rd Aug., 1977 for the examination of the complainant and his witnesses and afte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1978CriLJ942
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. Having heard Mr. N. B. Kharga, learned Advo- cate for the accused-appellant, and the learned Advocate-General appearing for the State, both of whom have taken us through the entire record, we have no manner of doubt that the appeal must be allowed and the judgment and order under appeal must be set aside.2. The accused-appellant has been convicted Under Section 497, Indian Penal Code, for allegedly committing adultery with the woman said to be married to the complainant, and also Under Section 498, Indian Penal Code, for allegedly detaining the said woman with intent to have illicit intercourse with her.3. Both the Sections 497 and 498 form part of Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code, which is headed as 'Of Offences relating to Marriage' and the question of marriage, its facturn and legality, are of utmost importance in all cases under these Sections. The law on the point appears to be well-settled for about last hundred years since the decision of the Full Ben...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1978CriLJ1569
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge of Sikkim at Gangtok has reported this case under Section 438, Cr. P.C. (1898) with recommendation that the order of the learned District Magistrate dated 5th Jan. 1977 passed in Criminal Case No. 332 of 1976 discharging the accused-respondent should be set aside and the case be sent back to some other competent Magistrate for further enquiry and trial. But after hearing the petitioner-complainant and the accused respondent and the learned Advocate-General appearing for the State and after going through the records of case and the explanation submitted by the trying Magistrate to the learned Sessions Judge, we are of opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in reporting this case to this Court under Section 438 of Cr. P.C. 1898, and that we must decline to interfere in this case.2. The case of the petitioner-complainant is that he filed a complaint against the accused-respondent before the District Magistrate, Gyalshing, alle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1978CriLJ1270
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. We have heard Mr. G. L. Subba, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner-complainant and the accused-respondents appearing in person and the learned Advocate-General appearing for the State and have perused the records of the case and we are of opinion that we cannot accept the reference and the recommendations made by the learned Sessions Judge and must decline to interfere.2. The case of the petitioner-complainant is that he lodged a complaint against the accused-respondents and two other accused persons and that after investigation the police submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 325/34, of the I.P.C. against the two accused-respondents in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, West Sikkim. The learned Magistrate thereafter recorded the statements of all the witnesses produced by the prosecution numbering five in all and then without framing a charge and without giving the accused-respondents any further opportunity to cross-examine the witnesse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1978CriLJ1379
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. The accused-appellant has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Sikkim under Section 409, I. P, C. on his alleged plea of guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rupees two hundred and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months more.2. The case for the prosecution appears to be that the accused was posted as a Conductor to Bus No. SKM 1467 of Sikkim Nationalised Transport during the month of Nov., 1976 and that in such capacity the accused collected a sum of Rs. 2,826.60p. on account of freight and fare but misappropriated the said amount. Shri Tempo Rapgyal, Transport Officer of the Sikkim Nationalised Transport lodged a written report to that effect with the Officer-in-charge, Sadar Police Station, on 16-2-77 and on the basis of this report the case was registered. During the course of investigation it was revealed that the accused had been appointed as a Conductor under the Sikkim Nation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1978CriLJ945
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the accused Prem Bahadur Rai against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sikkim at Gangtok, dated, 11th March, 1977 in Criminal Case No. 26 of 1976, whereby the accused has been convicted Under Section 457 read with Section 34 and Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years Under Section 457 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also to rigorous imprisonment for the same period Under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, both the sentences to run concurrently.2. The case of the prosecution appears to be that on 30-1-1976. at about 12 O'clock, a report was recieved at the Pakyong out post from one Mahabir Limboo to the effect that during the night between 28th and 29th January, 1976, one ear-ring of his wife had been robbed by some unknown persons who ran away immediately after the occurrence. A formal F.I.R., marked Exhibit ...
Tag this Judgment!