Andhra Pradesh Court September 1955 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.
Medanki Adeyya and ors. Vs. Dittakavi Apparao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-1955
Reported in: 1956CriLJ579
ORDERKrishna Rao, J.1. All the personal grounds against the Magistrate put forward by the petitioners in support of their application for transfer have been categorically and convincingly denied by the Magistrate and need no further consideration. The learned Advocate for the petitioners presses for the transfer on two grounds. The first is that the Magistrate posted the counter case, C. C. No. 465 of 1955 in which petitioner 1 is the complainant, for arguments to 28-8-1955, which was a Sunday. He refers to Rule 1 of the Criminal Rules of Practice which reads:Sunday shall be deemed a 'dies non' and no cases shall be heard and no judicial act formally announced or done on a Sunday, save in cases of absolute urgency.He contends that the posting of the case against the rule has given rise to an apprehension by the petitioners that the Magistrate will not deal with the case fairly. But the Magistrate has reported that the case was posted to the Sunday, with the consent of the Advocate Sri ...
Akki Veeraiah Vs. State (inspector, Special Police Establishment)
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-1955
Reported in: 1957CriLJ1078
Subba Rao C.J.1. This Criminal Revisional Petition has been referred to a Bench by Bhimasankaram J., on the ground that it raised a question of considerable importance.2. The Delhi Special Police Establishment filed a charge-sheet before the Joint Magistrate, Vijayawada, against the two accused Venkata Subbaiah and Veenvva, untlpr Section 120-B, I. P. Code, read with Sections 408 and 477-A, Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the 1st accused, who was a booking clerk of the Bezwada Town Booking Office, and the 2nd accused, who was a clerk in charge of the Bezwada Town Booking Office, entered into a conspiracy to commit breach of trust of railway funds and to commit other illegal acts. In the charge-sheet filed before the Joint Magistrate, it is stated:That in pursuance of the conspiracy accused 1 and 2 committed criminal breach of trust of Rs. 68-9-0 being the proceeds of the sale of the following card tickets on the dates specified against each and thereby they committed an offence ...
Vadula Buchanna Vs. the State of Hyderabad
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-1955
Reported in: 1956CriLJ215
ORDERSiadat Ali Khan, J.1. This is Revision Petition No. 287/ 1955 filed against the Judgment of the Munsiff Magistrate's Court, - Nirmal, dated 22-2-1955. I have heard the arguments of the learned Advocates of the parties.2. The facts alleged are that on 23-4-1954, a buffalo of the Revision Petitioner, Buehanna, was, according to him. stolen and slaughtered by Dometi Venkiah. Therefore, he lodged a complaint with the Police on the 24th. The Police issued an F.I.R, and investigated the complaint. It came to the conclusion that the complaint was a false one, issued a final report on 16-8-1954, and fled a complaint on 22-9-54 under Section 182, I.P.C.After this, revision petitioner also lodged a complaint to the Magistrate on 20-10-54 alleging that his allegation of theft was correct and it should be inquired into. The learned Magistrate tried both the cases together, convicted the Revision Petitioner under Section 182 and fined him Rs. 30/-holding that the complaint filed by the Revisio...
State of Hyderabad Vs. Somalingadu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-1955
Reported in: 1956CriLJ216
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Adilabad, moving this Court to quash a commitment order made by the Magistrate in a case where the accused was charged under Section 304 I.P.C. It appears that on the day when the case was ready for trial and all the witnesses were present, the learned Advocate for the Government took up the plea that the commitment was not in order inasmuch as the case was triable by the District Magistrate, Adilabad, who was invested with the powers under Section 30, Cr. P.C. This contention appears to have commended itself to the learned Sessions Judge who has made this reference,Section 215, Cr. P.C. merely contemplates the quashing of a committal order only on a point of law. In our view there is no legal flaw in the order of the Magistrate committing the case to the Sessions Court having jurisdiction to try the offence. We may observe that several Benches of this High Court, namely this Bench in - 'State v. Hanmappa', Cri...
Madupalli Anjaneyulu and Co. Vs. the State of Andhra
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1955
Reported in: [1956]7STC151(AP)
ORDERSatyanarayana Raju, J.1. This is a revision filed by the assessees against the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T. A. No. 225-A of 1953.2. The petitioners are a firm of dealers in kirana articles at Eluru. They have two departments of trade, one wholesale and the other partly wholesale and partly retail. For the year of assessment 1952-53, they submitted a total turnover of Rs. 6,35,122 made up of Ks. 1,44,442 from the wholesale department and Rs. 4,90,680 from the partly wholesale and partly retail department. The petitioner's shop was inspected by the Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer and he found that all the sales were not brought into account. He discovered three sales written on slips of paper in the year 1952-53, which did not find a place in the accounts. For the year 1953-54, he found that such sales written on slips of paper, but which were not brought into account, were more than 70 in number. A notice was issued that the net turnover would be dete...
Hindoji Kasturichand and anr. Vs. State of Andhra
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1955
Reported in: 1956CriLJ575
ORDERChandra Reddy, J.1. The petitioners have been convicted under Rule 29(1) read with Rule 53 of the rules framed under the Madras Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 45/-. Petitioner 1 is the proprietor and petitioner 2 is the manager of Mahavir Talkies at Tirupati. The case against them is this:2. On the night of 24-3-1954 the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (P. W. 5), Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (P. W. 2) along with P. W. 1 and a clerk and peon of P. W. l's Office visited the cinema house to check it when the second show was on. They entered the floor section of the auditorium and on inspection found about 39 persons without tickets, This has formed the basis of the charge under the rules mentioned above.The Additional 1st Class Magistrate who tried the case accepting the evidence of P. Ws 1, 2 and 5 that there were a number of persons without; tickets in the hall found the two accused guilty as stated above. The aggrieved accused have filed this revisio...
Vempa Sunanda Vs. Vempa Venkata Subbarao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1955
Reported in: 1956(1)ALT734; 1956(2)AndhWR853; AIR1957AP424
( 1 ) THE Order of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice: this appeal raises an important point in the disposal of matrimonial causes. The appellant was the wife of the respondent. They were married in the year 1942. On 10-2-1951, the respondent filed an application in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, under Section 5 (1) and (2) of the Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act (VI of 1949-hereinafter referred to as the Act) to dissolve his marriage with the appellant. On 3rd April 1952 the learned Subordinate Judge made a decree dissolving the marriage. The appellant preferred an appeal against that decree to the High Court of judicature, Madras and it has subsequently been transferred to this Court. Pending the appeal, the respondent died. The question is whether the appeal alone abated leaving the decree intact or whether the petition itself abated with the result that the decree also was vacated. Mr. C. V. Narasimha Rao, learned Counsel for ...
In Re: Burla Jayarami Reddi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-1955
Reported in: 1957CriLJ1062
Chandra Reddy, J.1. The appellants are accused 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 They along with 16 others were arraigned before the Sessions Judge, Nellore, on charges of rioting, murder and hurt in respect of an incident that took place on the 27th of July 1954, at about B p. m. in the Harijan quarters of Burlavaripalem : In the course of this rioting one Narasayya was fatally wounded and P. W. 1 had received some minor injuries while A-2 and A-10 also sustained some injuries.For over a year before the occurrence, there were factions between the Harijans of Burlavaripalem of Gudur Taluk, Nellore District and those of the neighbouring village, Balireddipalem, the leaders of the first party being the 1st and 12th accused and one Subbaramireddy the brother-in-law of P. W. 8, the village Munsif of Burlavaripalem being the leader of the other.A few Harijan families of Burlavaripalem who had affiliations in the other village refused to join the faction headed by A-l amongst whom was the deceased, P. Ws. 5 ...
Rahimunnissa and ors. Vs. Mohd. Ismail
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-06-1955
Reported in: 1956CriLJ47
ORDERBilgrami, J.1. This is a petition to revise an order of the Magistrate, Division No. 1 of Hyderabad City, ordering maintenance of Rs. 15/- against ihe levision petitioner, in favour of respondents Mohd. Riazuddin and Mohd. Giasuddin and rejecting the application of the respondent Rahimunissa, the wife, on the ground that she has refused to live with her husband for insufficient reasons and that the neglect or refusal to maintain of tile husband was not proved. A petition in revision has also been filed by the wife Rahmunnissa against this order.Both of these revision petitions, it will be convenient to decide together as they arise out of the same order. The learned advocate of the revision petitioner (Mohd. Ismail) argues that a previous application of the wife having been rejected, because she refused to live with her husband, and because the husband's neglect to maintain her was not proved, any maintenance to the children in her custody cannot be awarded. The father is prepared...
Polsetti Narayana Rao Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-02-1955
Reported in: [1956]29ITR222(AP)
The judgment of the Court was deliver by BHIMASANKARAM, J.This is a petitioner to direct the stay of the collection of income-tax arrears pending the disposal of a reference under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner was assessed as a Hindu joint family. It consists of two branches, one branch represented by Polisetti Narayana Rao and the other by his brother Govinda Rao. Narayana Rao was the kartha of the family and in that capacity submitted returns for the assessment years 1946-47, and 1947-48 on November 7, 1946, and September 15, 1947, respectively. In the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed that there was a partial partition in the family and that certain specific items, viz., house properties, cloth and yarn business and Sudarsana Oil Mill business were divided between the two branches, The Income-tax Officer negatived the claim of division, but on appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner it was upheld. On further appeal by the Department. it was he...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »