Andhra Pradesh Court March 1952 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.
Narsappa Vs. State of Hyderabad
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ498
ORDER1. These are six references by the learned District Magistrate, Raichur, recommending that the charges framed against the petitioners under Section 5, Hyderabad Gambling Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) be quashed and they be ordered to be discharged. In order to appreciate the point involved in these references, a few facts and some quotations in extenso need be mentioned and given. It appears that on 5th February, 1951, G. Sunkanna, Sub-Inspector in charge of Police Station at Lingsugur, submitted the following report to the Magistrate.I beg to submit that I received information that one Sultan Khan of Kasaivadi of Lingsugur allowed gambling with playing cards and money in his house and so his house was treated as one of the gaming houses for the public. I request the Honourable Court for issuing a house-search warrant for arresting the gamblers and to recover money and cards to maintain law and order.2. The Magistrate at Lingsugur passed the following order on the back ...
State of Hyderabad Vs. Annantha Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ746
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. In this case, the Sessions Judge of Bidar convicted the accused Ananthareddy, Malgonda and Mathuri Narsayya, son of Narsayya Dhed, under Sections 302 and 148, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced each of them to death and two years rigorous imprisonment respectively and convicted seven accused, viz., Fakirappa, Ramanna (Ramayya), Shankerappa, Sangayya (Sangappa), Lingayya, Gundappa and Bhaganna (Bhagayya) under Sections 302 and 148, Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to. transportation for life and two years rigorous imprisonment respectively. He ac-quitted three accused viz., Ramanna, Erayya (Eraooa) and Lalayya of the aforesaid charges. In the case of the first three accused, who have been sentenced to death records have been sent for confirmation and all the ten accused who have been convicted have also filed appeals.2. The story of the prosecution is that the accused along with some others who belonged to the party of Ananthareddy (Accused No. 1) due to enmity wi...
MuzaffaruddIn Vs. Hajira Begum and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-1952
Reported in: 1952CriLJ996
ORDERShripat Rao, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an order passed by the Chief City Magistrate, awarding maintenance to the respondents. Respondent No. 1 is the wife of the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor daughters. The respondent in her petition in the lower Court stated that her husband was ill-treating her and forced her to go away from his house. She has given her statement on oath in this respect and a doctor has been produced to show that there were marks of violence upon her person. The lower Court has come to the conclusion that ill-treatment of the wife was proved by the evidence in the case.2. After thoroughly going into the evidence and the record of the case, I am not prepared to interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the lower Court in this respect and agree with it that neglect of the husband to maintain the wife has been sufficiently proved. The husband has not made out a case that the wife refused to live with him without sufficient...
Mohanlal and ors. Vs. Hyderabad State
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-1952
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1307
ORDER1. The case of the prosecution was that three persons Devi Pershad, Mohanlal and Shivalal wagered in the business of Sengdana (groundnuts) on various dates towards the end of 1945. The prosecution contended that through certain brokers they contracted to deal in differences, that is to say, that they fixed some dates in future and undertook payment of the difference in price between the price on the date they bet and the stipulated date. On these allegations it was stated by the prosecution that the aforesaid three persons were liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act 2 of 1305 F.2. After the accused were summoned, the lower Court recorded their statements under Section 211, Hyderabad Criminal Procedure Code. The accused denied the guilt. The Vakil for the accused contended that the acts imputed to the accused even if they be proved, could never constitute an offence under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act. The lower Court heard the a...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›