Court : Guwahati
Thadani, Ag. C.J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, Upper Assam Districts, reporting to this Court Case no 1512-0 of 1947-Onkarmal Agarwalla v. Tulsi Nath Gogoi—Under Section 417, Penal Code, disposed of by Mr. T. Ahmed, Magistrate, 1st Glass, Dibrugarh.2. In November 1947, the complainant, Onkarmal Agarwalla, delivered a quantity of rice to Tulsi Nath Gogoi, with instructions to deliver the same to the Manager of the Singlijan T.E. and to obtain a cheque from him for the price. The accused Tulsinath Gogoi obtained a cheque from the Manager of the Singlijan T.E., but did not give it to the complainant. The complainant, thinking that the Manager had not given the accused Tulsinath a cheque, asked the accused to go with him to the Manager of the Singlijan T.E. on the way, the accused, on the pretext of answering a call of nature, patted company with the complainant and never returned. The complainant made inquiries from the office of the Tea Estate and was i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Ram Labhaya, J.1. This ia an application under 5. 439, Criminal P.C. seeking to get aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge, h. A. D., dated I6fch May 1949, by which ho Bet aside the order of the 8. D. 0., Mangaldai, dated 12th May 1948, by which the S. D. 0. had ordered an elephant, a guddi (trappings) and a chain to be returned to tbe petitioner.2. It appears that the petitioner had lodged a first information report on 25th January 1913 alleging that his elephant had been stolen by the accused-respondent. Three days later, on 28th January 1948, the elephant was seized by the police from the possession of the respondent. The police, however, did not send up a case against the respondent for theft, but instituted proceedings Under Section 117, Penal Code. On 26th April 1948, the S. D. 0. transferred the case Under Section 147, Penal Code, to the 2nd E. A. 0. for disposal. While this case waa pending before the 2nd E. A. 0., the police requested the 8. D. 0, to make an order conf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Ram Labhaya, J.1. This order will dispose of Revn. petns. (cri.) Nos. 28 and 30 of 1949. The petitioners were committed to the Court of, and tried by the Political Officer, Sadiya, who was also the Sessions Judge for the area. Ganpatrai was tried for an offence under Section 376, Penal Code, and Radhakissen for its abetment. The petitioners were acquitted of the charges against them. It was found that though Ganpatrai had committed sexual intercourse with Bimola and Radhakissen had abetted the act, no offences had beenn committed as the evidence in the case did not disclose that sexual intercourse had been committed without Bimola's consent. While acquitting both the petitioners of the charges, the Political Officer ordered externment of the petitioners from the Mismi Hills district holding that their presence in the area constituted a menace to society. In his opinion the petitioners were undesirable persons and therefore deserved to be externed.[2] The petitioners have applied to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Ram Labhaya, J.1. Petitioner, Joynal Hub-Bain was convicted Under Section 6 (a), Assam Opium Prohibition Act, 1947, by a Magistrate of the First Class. His appeal against the conviction was dismissed. He asks for a revision of the orders of the Courts below. It has been contended on his behalf that the trial is vitiated by an illegality. The petitioner had been, discharged when he was first prosecuted by an order of Mr. Oarvalho, Assistant Commissioner dated 7-9-1918, This order of discharge was later set aside by the Additional District Magistrate but without giving any opportunity to the accused to show cause why the order of diaobarga be not set aside and further inquiry ordered. It is urged that the failure to issue notice to the accused as required by Section 436, proviso, criminal P.C. is an illegality which vitiates the order directing further inquiry, as also the subsequent proceedings culminating in the conviction of the accused.2. This contention has considerable force. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Thadani, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal by one Kashim Ali and Fatik Sheikh against their convictions and sentences passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lower Assam Districts upon a unanimous verdict of guilty brought by the Jury, the appellant Kasbim Ali having been sentenced to transportation for life Under Section 302, Penal Code and 2 years' R. I. Under Section 148, Penal Code the sentences to run concurrently; the appellant Fatik Sheikh having been sentenced under Ba. 802/149, Penal Code to transportation for Hie.2. Dne Mfc. Dalimannessa was married to one Badaruddin, a son of the deceased Yad Ali. Adarjan, a daughter of Yad Ali, was married to the appellant Fatik Sheikh. For some 3 or 4 years, Mt. Dalimannessa had ceased to live with her husband, Badaruddin, and was living With her parents. While Dalimannessa was living with her parents, she was once abducted by the appellant, Fatik Sheikh, and detained in bis house for some ;3 months. Fatik Sheikh then divorced bis wife, Mt. Adar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Thadani, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Upper Assam Districts under the provisions of Section 438, Criminal P.C., in the case of ore Kanaketuvar Bora v. Asatu Kalita and 4 Ors.2. The complainant, Kanakeswar Bora, brought a complaint before the Senior Magistrate, Jorhat, in which he alleged that on 2nd February 1918, the accused persona (respondents in this case) at about 8 p. M. met him on the road and stole a money bag from his possession containing B9. SCO. The Senior Magistrate, Jorhat, transferred the case to the 2nd Class Magistrate, Jorhat, who examined the complainant on oath and sent the complaint to the Police for report; on 24th May 1918, on receipt of the report from the Police, the learned 2nd Class Magistrate issued process against the accused persons under Section 379 and 323, Penal Code. The accused apparently did not respond to the summons and the learned Magistrate issued warrants against them on 84th June 1948, and 20th July 1948. On...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Ram Labhaya J.1. This is a petition under Section 491, Criminal P.C., from a security prisoner from Nowgong Jail. The order of detention was passed by the Government of Asaam on 3-10-1919 under Sections (1)(a), Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, as amended. The order directed that the petitioner shall be detained for a period of six months with effect from 7-10-1949. A copy of the grounds of detention was sent to the petitioner along with the order and he was informed that he was at liberty to make a representation against the order of detention. He was further informed that his representation should reach the Government; not later than 30-10-1949. The grounds of detention were as follows:(a) That you, being an active member of the Students' Federation, Nowgong, under the influence of the G, P. I, have been acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order.(b) That you have endangered public peace and tranquillity at Nowgong by urging la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Ram Labhaya, J.1. The petitioners in this case were convicted Under Section 341, Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Es. 20 each, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The order of conviction was upheld in appeal.2. The prosecution case was that the jangal (path ail) in front of complainant's bari reached as to and joined the village path to the east of his bari and that this pathway had been in existence since the time of the complainant's grandfather. A part of the pathway, about cubits in length, was on the land of the accused. They included the pathway in their field and grew paddy on it. Plaintiff was thus prevented from using the pathway. This act of the accused according to the complainant amounted to an offence Under Section 341.3. The defence was that the complainant had no right of way over the land of the accused. Five witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant. The trial was summary. The learned Magistrate states that these witnesses s...
Tag this Judgment!