Andhra Pradesh Court February 1954 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.
Pole Samabhanna Vs. the State
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-1954
Reported in: 1955CriLJ496
ORDERPalnitkar, J.1. This revision petition has been directed against the order of the Additional District Magistrate at Adilabad dated 21-10-1953 by which the accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- for the contravention of the Supply Department's Notification No. 43 dated 28-5-1951. The first ground urged by the learned advocate for the petitioner is that the lower Court while trying the case summarily did not abide by the provisions of Section 12, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, and that the trial was therefore illegal and void.2. I find that there is force in this argument. Section 12, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, provides that any Magistrate empowered to try in a summary way the offences mentioned in Criminal P. C, Section 260, may, on application in this behalf being made by the prosecution, try in a summary manner the offences under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act. It is therefore clear that unless the prosecution makes an applicati...
State of Hyderabad Vs. C. Natarajan
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-1954
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1300
1. C. Natarajan, an Advocate, enrolled in this High Court, had sent a communication, dated 2-12-1953, to Hon'ble the Chief Justice entitled 'Dictators' forwarding copies of this communication for favour of kind information and necessary action to:(1) Hon'ble Shri Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India,(2) Hon'ble Shri Kailashnath Katju, Home Minister, Government of India,(3) Hon'ble Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan, Rajpramukh, Hyderabad state, and(4) Shri K. S. Naik, Chairman of the Anti-corruption Committee, Hyderabad-Deccan.This communication being a prima facie contempt, notice was ordered to be issued to him to show cause why proceedings should not be taken against him under Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, as also otherwise.2. In reply to this notice, Natarajan filed a petition tendering an unqualified apology for writing such a letter This petition which is signed by him and presented through his Counsel is in the following terms:In answer to the notice No. dated ....'53, Your applicant m...
The State Vs. Vikar Ahmed and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-1954
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1281
ORDER1. An article entitled 'Appointment of Shri Shripatrau as the Chief Justice' was publish-ed on 22-9-1953, in the newspaper called the Nizam Gazette. Notices were issued to Syed Vikar Ahmed and Mohd. Abdur Rahman, the Editor and the Joint-Editor of the paper, to show cause why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act of 1952 should not be taken against them, as the article prima facie amounted to a contempt of the Chief Justice and other Judges of the High Court in the discharge of their duties. By their replies of 1-11-1953, both the Editor and the Joint-Editor pleaded that they did not intend to commit any contempt, their newspaper fully realised the high position of the Court, and notwithstanding the aforesaid pleas if the Court came to the conclusion that any sentence of the article amounted to contempt, they apologise and hope the apologies would be accepted and the proceedings concluded.Mr. Murtuza Khan, who appeared on behalf of the editors has, however, argued that the ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›