Andhra Pradesh Court December 1950 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The State of Hyderabad Vs. Sidlingappa and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-1950
Reported in: 1952CriLJ722
Srinivasa Chari, J. (Naik, C.J. and Sripat Rao, J.)1. It is a fundamental principle of Criminal Law that no judicial officer should ordinarily convict an offender on the evidence which he had no opportunity to record and to hear. The underlying principle is that only the Judge who has had the opportunity of watching the conduct, expression and demeanour of the witnesses is in a better position to judge about the guilt or innocence of an offender. But Section 281 of the Hyderabad Criminal Procedure Code corresponding to Section 350 of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code provides a carefully limited exception to this salutary principle of natural justice that 'he alone may decide who has heard the evidence.' This exception was introduced for the first time in the Code of 1898. Section 281 gives the discretion to a Magistrate to act upon the evidence recorded by his predecessor, but this discretion is curtailed and circumscribed so that if the accused demands that the witnesses whose state...
The State Vs. Kasim Hussain
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ487
ORDER1. Thia is a reference by the Sessions Judge at Secunderabad.2. The short facts are that the criminal case against the accused triable without jury was transferred by a Divisional Bench of this Court from the original side of: this High Court to the Sessions Judge for trial. The learned Sessions Judge in his reference has quoted certain rulings of the Sind Chief Court and other High Courts in support of the view that the original side of the High Court is not equal in any sense of the term to the Court of Sessions. He has also referred to a decision of this Court reported in 24 Deccan L. R. 258.3. Ordinarily, we would have rejected this reference without any discussion as the case has been transferred by a Division Bench of this High Court, and it is not within our power as another Division Bench, to sit in appeal on the judgment or orders passed by the previous Division Bench.4. But the question was raised at the Bar on behalf of the accused that the Original Side not being subor...
Tigala Veeraya Vs. Hyderabad State
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ707
ORDER1. An interesting point of law has arisen in this case. One Tigala Satyanarayana Rao was charged for murder under Section 243, Hyderabad Penal Code Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The accused absconded & did not present himself before the Mag. The Mag. thereupon, under Section 77 Hyderabad Cr. P.C.(Section 87, Indian Cr. P.C.) caused a proclamation to be issued requiring the accused to appear before him & when the accused failed to appear the Mag. directed the attachment of the property belonging to the absconder under Section 73, Hyderabad Ct P.C. Section 88, Union Cr. P.C.2. The absconder Satyanarayana Rao happened to be a member of a Hindu joint family. He possessed no separate property. In execution of the Mag.'s order, property consisting of a dwelling house, cattle, lands, grain etc, was Attached. At this stage Tigal Veerayya, another member of the joint family filed an objection petn. objecting to the attachment on the ground that joint family property could not be attached...
Habib Mohammed Vs. Hyderabad State
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ481
ORDER1. This is a petn. on behalf of the accused for the grant of leave to appeal to S.C . under Article 134 (1)(c), Const. Ind, According to the provisions of Article 134 (1)(c) it is necessary that this Ct. should certify that the case is a fit one for appeal to S. C, Mr. Rahman, counsel on behalf of the accused, argues that as no rules have bean framed either by this Ct. or by S.C. under Article 145, Clause (d), Const. Ind. no restrictions or limitations can be placed & the petnr. would be entitled to a certificate in view of the fact that the petnr, is sentenced to death. Further, he contends that before the Const, came into force there was no statutory right of appeal in or. cases while after the passing of the Const. Ind. the right to appeal is not only extended but in Criminal cases the accused has got a statutory right to appeal, In this connection, it was further argued that in so far as the right to appeal is concerned there is no distinction in or. or civ, appeals. The only ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›