Andhra Pradesh Court February 1953 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.
Abugunda and ors. Vs. Devgunda
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-1953
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1524
ORDERSiadatali Khan, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the Munsiff Court, Bhodan, dated 19.8.1952 by which the land in dispute has been taken in possession of the Court and the parties directed to resort to a civil Court. Against this order the revision petition has been filed and I have heard the arguments of the learned advocates of the parties, Shri Amanullah and Shri K.B. Swamy Gupta.2. The learned Counsel for the revision-petitioners argued that when the Magistrate had come to the conclusion that there was no likelihood of breach of peace, the only thing he could do was that he should have returned the possession of the land to the party from whom it was taken. No one can dispute this proposition. The learned Magistrate was himself aware of it as it appears from the statement in, the judgment that unfortunately the police did not prepare a panchnama at the time of taking possession of the land in the Court's custody. In the circumstances he proceeded to conside...
State Vs. Prabhu Dayal
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-1953
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1841
ORDER1. This revision petition, preferred against the judgment of the lower Court, raises some legal issues. The facts of the case are that the police received information to the effect that the accused who was a teacher in the Kayasti Pathashala issued false and forged transfer certificates in lieu of some gratification to certain students purporting to show that they had passed in their examinations (though they had actually failed) and that they are eligible for admission to the higher standard. The transfer certificates for which they applied for, were required, as they wanted to enter and read in some other schools. The police, therefore, were of opinion that the accused had committed the offences mentioned in Sections 395 and 397 of the Hyderabad Penal Code corresponding to Sections 467 and 463 of the Indian Penal Code. As the offences were non-cognizable, the police wrote to the City Criminal Court for permission to investigate the offences under Section 156, Hyderabad Criminal ...
Vijay Rao Vs. State
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-1953
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1856
ORDERSiadat Ali Khan, J.1. This is a reference from the District & Sessions Court, Gulbarga, recommending that the sentence of a fine of Its. 50/- and in default 15 days imprisonment passed by the Munsiff Court, Tandur, on. 30.6.1952 against the accused Vijay Rao for contempt under Section 228, Indian Penal Code, be set aside as it is bad in law. The revision-petitioner, Vijay Rao, is present in person. I have carefully considered the record and put down my opinion below.2. Tile offence charged against the revision-petitioner is, as already stated, that of contempt of court, an offence which may be tried under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act or under the inherent powers of the Court of Record or under Section 228, Indian Penal Code, or summarily under S. 480, Indian Criminal P.C., if it is committed in 'facie curiae'. It appears from a perusal of the record that the court has proceeded under Section 480, I. Cr.P.C. which provides, 'inter alia', that an offence as described...
The State Vs. Mumtaz Ali and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-1953
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1640
ORDER1. This is a revision petition which has been preferred by the State against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge at Hyderabad remanding the case for retrial to the Court of the Special Magistrate.2. The brief facts are that 51 accused were charged for the commission of dacoity under Section 333 of the Hyderabad Penal Code. Before the trial commenced, pardon was tendered to one of the accused (Zurftqar) in March 1950 by the Magistrate of Taluka Gharbi. The case was transferred to the Court of the Special Magistrate who tried the same and recorded a mass of evidence covering about 157 witnesses. The Special Magistrate held the 24 accused, present before us, guilty of the charge and sentenced them to imprisonment of four years each. The rest of the accused were acquitted. Against that judgment, the accused who were convicted preferred an appeal before the lower Court which allowed the appeal and sent the case for retrial. The Government have filed this revision petition agains...
Bua Bi W/O Syed Ali and anr. Vs. Khadija Begum
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-1953
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1630
ORDERSiadatali Khan, J.1. This is a revision petition in a breach of peace case. The IVth Court, City Criminal Court, by judgment dated 24.9.1951 directed that the lands be kept in the custody of the Court till the parties get a decision from the civil Court. Hence this revision petition-filed by Bua Bi and Kandmir. I have heard the arguments of the learned advocates of the parties.2. The learned advocate for the revision, petitioners argued that possession of the revision-petitioners has been admitted by the respondent, Khadija Begum. It was also admitted in the Police report and has been deposed to by several witnesses of the respondent; for instance Malla Reddy, the village officer, who has deposed that for the last year or two Mussalmans had come on the land and taken possession of it. He argued further that this is what, the predecessors-in-title and brother-in-law of the respondent, Khadija Begum, Jafer Ali Khan, also has deposed that he had initiated proceedings for breach of pe...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›