Andhra Pradesh Court January 1951 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.
Wahab Ali Vs. Qamro Bi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-1951
Reported in: 1951CriLJ1299
ORDERSuryanarayana Rao, J.1. This is a Muslim husband's revision petition against an order of maintenance passed by the lower Court awarding O, S. Rs. 50 to his wife & two daughters aged 8 & 11.2. In his counter, the husband stated that ha had divorced his wife in 1854 Fasli. The Court, however, hold that the alleged divorce was not proved. In revision, I am not prepared to interfere with this finding of fact.3. Learned Advocate for the respondents argues in the alternative, as a question of law, that the statement by the husband in his written statement that he had divorced his wife will operate as divorce since it is an expression of his intention to divorce his wife. He relies on a Division Bench ruling of this High Court in Mohammed Hussain v. Rasul Bi, 14 Deccan L. R. 37 wherein it was held that a statement of the husband as having given tallak, made before the Court operates as divorce. In Abdul Azeez v. Kabira Bi, 32 Deccan L. R. 192, it was held that an endorsement by the husba...
Mohamed Abdul Raoof and ors. Vs. State of Hyderabad
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-1951
Reported in: 1951CriLJ273
ORDER1. These are transfer applications by eight accused who are being prosecuted along with ten others in the Court of the Special Tribunal No. IV, Hyderabad for offences of criminal conspiracy, promoting class hatred, robbery, dacoity, mischief by fire, murder, grievous hurt, punishable under Section 77B, 83 and Sections 243; 266, 328, 330 and 368, read with SB. 66 and 77B, Hyderabad Penal Code and for contravening Rr, 37, 67 and 58, Defence of Hyderabad Rules read with Rule 112 of the same Rules. The applications were filed under Section 494, Hyderabad Criminal P.C., corresponding to Section 526, Indian Criminal P.C., but some of the applicants have also invoked the aid of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. A Pull Bench of this High Court has, in an earlier stage of this case, held in Abdur Rahim v. State of Hyderabad, criminal oases Nos. 14 to 20 of 1950 on 13-11-1950; A.I.R. (38) 1951 Hyderabad 11 F.B.) that the Special Tribunals Regulation under which the Specia...
Hyderabad State Vs. Beerappa and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-1951
Reported in: 1951CriLJ912
ORDER1. Beerappa & seven others were charged, before the Mag. of Cheetapur, under Sections 124 & 267. Hyderabad Penal Code for rioting with deadly weapons & voluntarily causing hurt to one Devappa to compel him to give their shares in the house & mother landed property.2. It was argued before the Mag., on behalf of the accused that Section 267 could not apply to the facts of the present case as disclosed by the indictment because the word 'property' occurring in the section charged did not cover immovable property. For this proposition reliance was placed on Ammeeruddin v. Sarkar-e-Aali, 27 Deccan L. R. 5. It is laid down there that the word 'property' read in the context of the definition of extortion given in Section 319, Hyderabad Penal Code, connotes the attribute of movability so as to be capable of being handed over or delivered.3. The learned Mag. did not decide the objection & as the offence under Section 267 was exclusively triable by a Ct. of Session he committed the case to ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›