Andhra Pradesh Court July 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.
Mahadoo Vs. State of Hyderabad
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ75
Deshpande, J.1. The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the appellants, Mahadoo, Shripat, and Mitho, were challaned under Section 380, Penal Code, for stealing two oxen and one she buffalo. Out of these three accused, Shripat and Mithoo were discharged and enquiry was made against Mahadoo only. The Munsiff Magistrate found the charge of stealing proved against Mahadoo, convicted him under Section 330, I. P. C., and sentenced him to undergo eight months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-; against which an appeal was preferred by Mahadoo before the District and Sessions Judge, Eir. The Sessions Judge confirmed the finding of the lower court, but modified the sentence to five days imprisonment and enhanced the fine to Rs. 300/-. Aggrieved by this decision the petitioner has filed this revision petition.2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is no proof as to the property having been stolen by him and it is the duty of the prosecution t...
Basvarala Satteyya Vs. Malsoor and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ444
ORDERJaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the learned Magistrate, passed on an application filed by the respondent in 1358 F under Section 411, Hyderabad Cr. P. C. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to state the facts briefly. The respondents Malsoor, Mohanamma and Kamalamma claimed maintenance under Section 411, Hyderabad Cr. P. C. alleging that they are the children of the petitioner. After, due enquiry, an order for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month for the three children was passed in 1347 P., and maintenance was paid by the petitioner till 1350 F., when he filed a civil suit for a declaration that the respondents are not his children and that he is not responsible for the payment of maintenance. This litigation went upto the High Court which decided in 1357F., that the respondents were the children of the petitioner and that they were entitled to be maintained by him.After this in 1358 F., responden...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›