Andhra Pradesh Court July 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.
Nageschandra and anr. Vs. State of Hyderabad
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ648
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. These are two revisions against the framing of a charge by the Munsiff-Magistrate, Gulbarga, dated 1.2.1951, under which the accused were charged with the contravention of Notifications S.R.O. 500 and S.R.O. 1103 issued under the Supply and Prices of Goods Ordinance, 1950 and of Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. The learned Advocate for the revision-petitioners contends 'inter alia' (a) that on the date when the offence was committed, viz., 19.1.1951, the Supply and Prices of Goods Ordinance 1950 was replaced by Supply and Prices of Goods Act 1950 (Act No. 70 of 1.950); (b) that under Section 17 of the said Act, no person below the rank of the Inspector of Police shall investigate an offence punishable under the Act and no prosecution for any such offence shall be instituted except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of any officer not below the rank of a District Magistrate empowered by the Central Gover...
State of Hyderabad Vs. Bhimaraya
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ524
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This is a reference by the District and Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, for quashing the order of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Yadir, purporting to have been made under Section 512 of Criminal Procedure Code with respect to certain absconding accused. The order is as follows:As regards the so-called absconding accused there is no sufficient proof of their participation at all, hence I do not find any reason to act under Section 512 of the Criminal Procedure Code and issue any warrant against them, hence their names are worth being deleted.2. Section 512, Criminal Procedure Code merely authorises the trial court or the committing court in a case where it is proved that the accused has absconded and that there is no immediate prospect of arresting him to, examine the witnesses (if any) produced cm-behalf of the prosecution and record their depositions. Any such deposition may, on the arrest of such person, be given in evidence against him on the enquiry into, or trial for the...
Mohamad Hydar and ors. Vs. the State of Hyderabad
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ454
Palnitkar, C.J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgments prepared by my learned colleagues, M.A. Ansari and Srinivasa Chari JJ., which they are about to deliver. After carefully going through both of them, I agree with the conclusion arrived at by Ansari J.2. So far as the constitutional question is concerned, the three judgments of the Supreme Court, viz., - State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali : 1952CriLJ510 , - Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra : 1952CriLJ805 , and - Lachmandas Kewalram v. State of Bombay : 1952CriLJ1167 , declare the final word on the law as regards the validity of such special regulations. It is clear that Article 14 of the Constitution condemns discrimination not only by substantive law but also by law of procedure. The Hyderabad Special Tribunals (Termination) and Special Judges (Appointment) Regulation No. X of 1359 Fasli, provides certain special procedure different from that laid down in the ordinary law of criminal procedure and it is to be decided...
Shripathy and ors. Vs. State
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-08-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ101
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This is a second appeal against the finding and judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Bhir. The facts of the case are that the three appellants who were caught while transporting coal and edible oils on the night of 21 and 22 February 1951, in contravention of Notifications under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, were charged, convicted and sentenced to 5 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- each with an alternative sentence in. default of the payment of the fine. The learned Sessions Judge to whom the accused have appealed after reviewing the evidence confirmed the convictions, but reduced the sentence to one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-. Of this sentence, the accused have undergone fifteen days rigorous imprisonment and have been released on bail. Apart from the question whether a second appeal would lie to the High Court after the enforcement of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code, inasmuch as the charg...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›