Skip to content

Andhra Pradesh Court March 1956 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.

Mar 05 1956

Papamma and ors. Vs. the State of Hyderabad

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-05-1956

Reported in: 1957CriLJ282

Mir Siadat Ali Khan, J. 1. In this revision petition we have heard the arguments of the learned advocates of the parties. The revision petitioners, Papamma and Laxamma, were prosecuted under the Hyderabad Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act No. XLIX of 1952.2. The question requiring consideration is whether this Act No. XLIX of 1952 has been extended to the place of occurrence, Alwal. Section 2 of the Act provides that Government may from time to time by Notification in the Jareeda apply all or any of the provisions of this Act to whole or any portion of the State of Hyderabad. It was conceded by the learned senior Government Advocate that no such Notification has been issued. The only Notification issued is Notification No. S.P.L. (L)/13-LW(6) dated 31-7-1953 in which it is provided that the Raj Pramukh is pleased to direct that with effect from 1st of August 1953 all the provisions of Act No. XLIX of 1952 shall apply to the Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad.Clearly Alwal is not wit...


Mar 03 1956

Mangalapalli Ramakrishniah Vs. State of Andhra

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-03-1956

Reported in: [1956]7STC482(AP)

Viswanatha Sastry, J.1. The assessee is a merchant who entered into a written contract with the Government, Exhibit A-1, described as 'an agreement for the collection and disposal of bamboos in the bamboo coupes in Peddagiri Range at Amalapuram'. The assessee was referred to in Exhibit A-1 as a 'contractor'. The period during which he was allowed to fell, collect and remove the bamboos from the forest extended for about 11 months from 7th May, 1951, to 31st March, 1952. There were clauses in the contract, Exhibit A-1, prohibiting the assessee from cutting all the bamboos in a cluster or tender shoots less than a year old. The bamboos were of spontaneous growth in the Government forest. There were restrictions imposed on the assessee and his men and servants with regard to the entry into the forest and egress out of it when cutting bamboos. The assessee paid a lump sum to the Government as consideration for the right of cutting the bamboos from the forest during the stipulated period. T...


Mar 02 1956

In Re: Shaik Server

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-02-1956

Reported in: 1957CriLJ1393

ORDERKrishna Rao, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Gooty, of an offence punishable under Section 411, I. P. C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the District Magistrate, Gooty, on appeal, and therefore the petitioner has come up in revision.2. The facts of the case are briefly these : On 19-12-1954, P.W. 2 a Watch and Ward sepoy working at Gtmtakal Railway Station, found that the seal of a goods railway wagon had been tampered with and reported the fact to the Assistant Station Master. On 21-12-54, P.W. 3, the Chief Parcel Clerk, checked the contents of the wagon and discovered that 3 out of the 66 parcels in the wagon were missing. Thereupon P.W. 7, the Railway Police Sub-Inspector, took up investigation and on 11-1-1955 searched the house of the petitioner who is a sundry shop keeper at Guntakal, in the presence of mediators, one of whom was P.W. 5. He seized two gunn...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial