Andhra Pradesh Court April 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.
Morampudi Narsayya Vs. Hyderabad State
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-28-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ502
ORDER1. On 28.2-1950, one Morampudi Narsayya filed an appln. accompanied by an affidavit praying for the issue of writs of habeas corpus under Article 226, Const. Ind. The grounds Stated in the petn. are that 9 persons specified in the appln. have been arrested without proper legal authorisation. This appln. was admitted & a notice was issued to the Govt. Advocate on 14-3 1900. On 14 7-1950 when the petn. came up for bearing before a Division Bench, Mr. Mohammed Mirza, the learned Govt. Advocate, on behalf of the Govt., furnished only two copies of detention orders relating to Sitaramaiah, & Yenkayya, s/o Appayya, but did not file any copy of detention orders regarding the other seven, & stated that he had no further instructions as to whether the detention orders have been served on these seven detenus. He further said that he was not aware whether grounds of detention were furnished to all these detenus. The Division Bench, not being satisfied with the statement of the Advocate, dire...
Abdul Karim Vs. Govt. of Hyderabad
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ710
ORDER1. This is an appln, for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus praying that the petnr. be set at liberty. The learned Chief Justice before whom the appln was filed directed notice to issue to the Govt. & after notice to the Advocate-General, the petn. came on for hearing before us on 21.4.1960. We have heard the arguments of Moulvi Abdul Hasan Syed Ali for the petnr. & the Advocate General on behalf of the Govt.2. Before the passing of the Const. Ind. the H.C. had power to issue an order directing the release of a person said to be illegally detained under Section 620, Hyderabad Cr. P.C. Now, since the passing of the Const. Ind., the power to issue writs in the nature of habeas corpus & similar writs has been specifically given to the H. C. under Article 226, Const. Ind.3. The petnr. in this case has been detained under Section 3 Preventive Detention Act IV 4. of 1950, passed by the Indian Parliament on 25-2-1960. Under Article 246, Const. Ind.. Parliament has exclusive power to ma...
Excise Department Vs. Chota Hanmanthu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ718
1. This is an appeal submitted by ft State against the order of acquittal passed by the Mag. of Alampur dated 13 4-1357 F.2. The Mag. stated in his order that no. body was present on behalf of the Abkari Department, & as the accused was present & the case was one in which a summons was ordinarily to be issued, the case is dismissed for default under Section 219, Hyd. Cr. P.C. & the accused is acquitted.3. Learned Advocate for applt. argued that the order of dismissal for default was contrary to law. He also states that a petn. for adjourn, meat was sent through the Sub-Inspector of Abkari, but that he could not submit the same in Ct in good time due to sickness of his wife.4. After going through the provisions of Section 219, Hyd. Cr. P.C. we are of the opinion that the order of dismissal for default cannot be upheld. The proviso to the Suction lays down that where the complainant is a public servant & his personal attendance is not required, the Mag. may dispense with his attendance &...
Excise Department Vs. Magiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ281
1. This is an appeal submitted by (State) against the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate of Alampur dated 13-4-1357F.2. The Magistrate baa stated in his order that nobody was present on behalf of the Abkari Department, and as the accused was present and the case was one in which a summons was ordinarily to be issued, the case is dismissed for default under Section 219, Hyderabad Criminal P.C., and the accused is acquitted.3. Learned Advocate for the appellant argues that the order of dismissal for default is contrary to law. He also states that a petition for adjournment was sent through the Sub-Inspector of Abkari, but that he could not submit the same in Court in good time due to sickness of his wife.4. After going through the provisions of Section 219, Hyderabad Criminal P.C., we are of the opinion that the order of dismissal for default cannot be upheld, The proviso to the section lays down that where the complainant is a public servant and his personal attendance is not r...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›