Andhra Pradesh Court March 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.
Shivappa and ors. Vs. Hyderabad State
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1954
Reported in: 1955CriLJ953
1. These are five criminal appeals, Nos. 957, 1018, 1019, 1025 and 1183, register No. 6 of 1952-53. The District and Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, by judgment dated 16-9-1952, has convicted and sentenced die appellants, Shivappa, Mohd. Khan, Yellappa, Laxmayya and Chandrayya to transportation for life for offences Under Sections 121, 396 and 436, IPC We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel, Shri Shaik Mohd. Hasan and die learned advocate, Shri Manoher Raj Saxena for die appellants and the learned Government Advocate, Shri Srinivasaraghavachari for the State.2. The facts alleged are that on 17-10-1950 at midnight in Antwaram village, Chincholi Tk., Gulbarga Dist. the five appellants together with several other communists attacked the Police outpost at Antwaram; diat fire was exchanged in which four constables were injured and one Govardhan More was shot dead. The First Information Report was issued on 25-10-1950 and it reached the court on the 26th. A panchanama of the corpse was...
Pannalal Lahoti Vs. State of Hyderabad
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1954
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1093
Misra, C.J.1. The following four questions have been referred by a Full Bench of three judges to a Fuller Bench of five judges:(1) Whether the Hyderabad Defence Regulation, having regard to its preamble, language, emergency and the constitutional set up at the State then existing was operative only during the period of emergency for which it was promulgated and should be deemed to have lapsed afterwards without any express repealment;(2) whether the directions contained in the Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order of 1355-F. about the publication of a press-note explaining its provisions read with R. 110 at the Defence of Hyderabad Rules are man-datory;(3) whether the directions by the Textile Commissioner about the markings on the bales having regard to the definition of 'Cloth'. 'Yarn' and other provisions of the Order of 1352-P., under which it was framed as well as the later Order are not within the scope of his delegated authority and therefore ultra vires; and(4) whether Sections 4...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›