Skip to content

Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.

Aug 14 1952

MuzafaruddIn Mohammad Vs. State

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Decided on: Aug-14-1952

Reported in: 1953CriLJ1320

Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This reference arises out of a petition for bail by one Muzafaruddin Mohamed, Taluqa Supply Officer of Gangavathi against whom information was laid by the Collector of Raichur that he has been responsible, along with one Abdul Hai, for defalcation of public funds by reason of a deficiency of 517 pallas of food-grain from the Government Godown at Gangavathi, of which they were both in charge. On receipt of this information, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Koppal, made the following endorsement:Handed over to S.I. Police, Gangavathi, for registering a case under Section 409, I.P.C. He should arrest the two accused immediately and complete the investigation and file the charge-sheet; the Inspector, Gangavathi will also personally investigate the case.Sd/- P. Kameshwar Rao,Dy. S.P. Koppal.26.5.1952.Sd/- S.I of Police,GANGAVATHI.16.5.1952.2. It was stated in the information report of the Collector that the applicant Muzafaruddin left Gangavathi on casual leave fo...


Aug 12 1952

Ankush Rao Vs. the Collector

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Decided on: Aug-12-1952

Reported in: 1953CriLJ1120

ORDER1. Heard arguments of parties. The facts which have given rise to this writ petition are briefly as follows:The petitioner had in his possession a 12-bore gun for which he held a licence under the Arms Act. On 13.3.1952, the Collector of Bhir informed the petitioner that the licence for the said weapon has been cancelled and that the petitioner should deposit the rifle together with the licence and ammunition at the Police Station. Shri Anisuddin Ahmed, the learned advocate for the petitioner, argues that under Section 13, Arms Act, authority has-been given for the officer concerned to cancel or suspend the licence with regard to the arms which were licensed but Clause A of that Section makes it incumbent upon the officer to record in writing the reasons for such a cancellation and that the licence can be cancelled only when it is deemed necessary to do so in the interest of the public peace. From a reading of the sub-section, it is clear that the licence can be cancelled when the...


  • ‹ Prev
  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial