Andhra Pradesh Court November 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.
Gangar Laxmanna Vs. Bhojawa
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1311
Rai Manohar Pershad, J.1. A Single Bench of this Court has referred this case to the Division Bench having regard to the importance or the question of law involved. The question of law is:Whether a compromise entered into between the parties in the proceedings under Section 488 of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code is enforceable by a criminal Court or whether the aggrieved party has to seek redress in a Civil Court.The trial Court has held that the compromise is enforceable and the aggrieved party need not be directed to take proceedings in the Civil Court. Against that decision is this petition in revision. The learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner relying on Gangasingh v. Mathura Bai 37 Deecan LR 121; Pal Singh v. Nihal Kaur AIR 1932 Lah 349 (2) & Ram Saran Das v. Mt. Damodri AIR 1934 Lah 864, argues that once the 'Sulanama' is accepted by the Criminal Court the proceedings under Section 488, Indian Criminal Pro, Code come to an end, and if there is any breach of the conditio...
Chandrappa and ors. Vs. Megharaj
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ343
ORDERSiadatali Khan, J.1. These are seven revision petitions in a criminal case. The Addl, District Court, Gulbarga, by judgment dated 9th December 1950 has convicted and sentenced the accused, Chandrappa, Ella, Ashappa, Shivalinga, Hyali, Sukrappa and Hanmappa for criminal trespass under Section 377, H.P.C. corresponding to Section 448, I.P.C. imposing on all of them a fine of Rs. 15/- only. Hence these revision petitions by each of the accused. The learned Addl. District Magistrate by order dated 19th December 1950 directed also that the possession of the house should be restored to the complainant, Megharaj. Two revisions have been filed against this order also. I have heard the arguments of the learned advocates of the parties and record my opinion below. This judgment will cover all the revisions filed.2. The facts alleged are that on 30th Thir 1357 F., the complainant Megaraj's house in the village of Sayyidapur, Ishapur Taluk, Gulbarga Dt., was entered into by force by the accus...
Asaram Vs. Hyderabad Government
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ707
ORDER1. This is a revision from the Order of the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad dated 31st May, 1951, upholding on appeal the order of conviction passed by the Magistrate at Jain a under Rule 72 of the Defence of Hyderabad Rules for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Government Notification 124 of 1355F. The sentence imposed being one month's rigorous imprisonment with a direction for forfeiture of wheat to the State and a fine of Rs. 700/- or in default a further term of one month's rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts leading to the prosecution lie in a short compass and may briefly be stated. It was on 7th May, 1950 the Tahsildar of Jalna had reason to believe that the firm of Sawaldas Madhudas managed by Thakurdas P.W. 1 was-in possession of undeclared food-stuffs. He consequently made a search under Section 4(b) of the Notification and recovered six bags of wheat weighing 14 maunds and 20 seers from the go down in use and occupation of the firm, Thakurdas P....
Jagannath Singh and anr. Vs. Sangeet Kistayya
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ505
ORDER1. Jagannath Singh and Kundan Singh were, on a complaint by Sangeet Kishtaiyya, convicted for offences of criminal tresspass and assault otherwise than on grave provocation under Sections 376 and 292, Hyderabad Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40/- and Rs. 10/- for each offence respectively. The learned District Magistrate, Asafabad, on separate appeal by the accused upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate at Chinnoor.2. As no second appeal was open to the accused in view of the provisions of Section 339, Hyderabad Criminal Procedure Code, they have applied in revision separately under Section 364 of the Code.3. These revisions, which will be governed by this judgment were in the first instance heard by Mr. Justice Manohar Pershad. On the authority of 'in the matter of Govind Prasad 2 All 465, Shah Muhammad v. Ganesh Das 2 CriLJ 83 (Lah), Bhupat Mandal v. Kartik Jha AIR (23) 1936 Pat 170, Raghava Reddy v. Yera Reddy 20 Deccan LR 457 and Syed Ahmed ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›