Andhra Pradesh Court April 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.
Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs. Sri Pentapaty Lakshmana Sw ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-1956
Reported in: [1956]7STC560(AP)
ORDER1. The matter coming up in the first instance before Subba Rao, C.J., and Bhimasankaram, J., the following question was referred to a Full Bench :-'Whether the deduction referred to in sub-rule (2) of rule 18 of the Turnover and Assessment Rules framed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act is conditional upon the assessee complying with the requirement contained in sub-rule (3) of that rule.'Opinion Of The Full Bench The Opinion of the Full Bench was delivered by P. Satyanarayana Raju, J.1. The following question has been referred to us :'Whether the deduction referred to in sub-rule (2) of rule 18 of the Turnover and Assessment Rules framed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act is conditional upon the assessee complying with the requirement contained in sub-rule (3) of that rule ?'2. The answer to this question depends on the construction of the relevant provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), which, by reason of section 53 of the An...
In Re: Pudi Ramulu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ1213
Krishna Rao J.1. This is an application under Article 134 of the Constitution for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against our judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1955 by which the convictions of the three petitioners under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and their sentences of transportation for life were confirmed and their appeal from the judgment of the Court of Session, West Godavari, in Sessions Case No. 58 of 1954 was dismissed. The issue of a certificate is prayed for under Sub-clause (c) of Clause (1) or Article 134, which is in the following terms:(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court- xxx x(c) Certifies that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court:Provided that an appeal under Sub-clause (c) shall lie subject to such provisions as may be made in that behalf under Clause 0) of Article 145 and to such conditions as the High C...
The State of Andhra Vs. S. Kameswar Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1959AP39
Viswanatha Sastri, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order of Mr. Justice Bhimasankaram passed in G. M. P. No. 1081 of 1956 in A. S. No. 87 of 1956. The appeal was preferred by the State of Andhra represented by the Chief Secretary of Home Department, Kurnool against the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur in O. S. No. 40 of 1955, The suit was brought by S. Kames-war Rao, the respondent in this L. P. A. for certain declaration against the State of Madras and the State of Andhra regarding the propriety of the order passed for his compulsory retirement from the service of the State in the Police Department. It is unnecessary for the purposes of this appeal to refer to the allegations in the pleadings or to the evidence adduced in the case. Suffice it to say that the learned Subordinate Judge who tried the suit granted a declaration in favour of the plaintiff, here respondent, in these terms : 'In the light of. my findings on the other issues, the following decree is passed : (1) f...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. M. Rangareddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ623
Umamaheshwaram, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal of accused 1, 2 and 4 in C. C. No. 1854/52 on the file of the Stationary Sub Magistrate, Allagadda. The case of the Prosecution is that accused 1 to 3 were carrying 15 tins of arrack in a car M.D.U. 184 belonging to the 4th accused. At about 2.45 a.m. on 12-9-52, the car was stopped by the prohibition Sub-inspector, Sirvel, examined as P. W. 1. Charges framed against the accused were under Sections 4(1)(a) and 12 of the Madras Prohibition Act. The Stationary Sub Magistrate did not accept the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and acquitted the accused. The Public Prosecutor of Andhra has consequently preferred the appeal.2. The case of the prosecution rests upon the oral evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 and Ex. B-1, a. statement recording the confessions of accused 1 to 3 P. W. 3 who signed Ex. P-1 stated that by the-time he went to the place where the car was stopped, he found that the tins were all o...
In Re: Chirumamilla Tirupatayya and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ1218
ORDERUmamaheswaram, J.1. Two questions arise for consideration in this revision case (a) whether advance notice of the application for suspension of sentence under Section 426, Cr. P. C., should be given to the Public Prosecutor, and (ii) whether the Court is entitled to give notice to the Public Prosecutor before the appellant is released on bail or the sentence is suspended, pending the Criminal appeal.2. The petitioners herein applied for suspension of the sentence of fine of Rs. 100 passed against each under Section 4 (1) (b) of the Madras Prohibition Act before the Sessions Judge, Guntur, pending a criminal appeal filed before him. The Sessions Judge directed notice to be given to the Public Prosecutor. Instead of serving notice, the petitioner's advocate filed an elaborate memo to the effect that no notice was necessary. The Sessions Judge held that as the notice directed by him was not given to the Public Prosecutor, he had no alternative but to reject the application for suspen...
In Re: P. Appayya
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ627
ORDERBhimasankaram, J.1. The petition was charged with offences under Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act and convicted and sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment under each count, the sentences to run concurrently.2. On the evening of 2-7-1955, the prisoner was driving a lorry on the road from Piduguralla to Sattenapalli. The first witness for the prosecution as well as the first witness for the defence were seated in the lorry beside the petitioner. At about 7-30 p.m. the lorry reached the outskirts of the village of Dhulipala when it met a drove of cattle moving in the opposite direction. The lorry ran into the animals and the result was that four lie-buffaloes died on the spot while two others seriously injured. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed and explained that the night was cloudy, that there was a drizzle, that as the front lights of the lorry were not in good order, the visibility was poor and that when he s...
Putchalapalli Venkata Subbareddi Vs. Duvvuru Papireddi and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ923
ORDERUmamaheswaram, J.1. These are applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for excusing the delay in filing applications for special leave under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended by Act XXVI of 1955, and they raise an important and interesting question of law. The period of limitation for preferring an appeal under Section 417(1), Criminal Procedure Code, is fixed under Article 157 of the Limitation Act. To such appeals it is not disputed that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies. Even in regard to other criminal appeals provided under Articles 150, 150-A, 154 and 155 the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, apply. The decision of the Madras High Court in Janakiramayya v. Brahmayya 48 Mad LJ 457 : AIR 1925 Mad 709(A) and of the Punjab High Court in The State v. Dittu Ram 0065/1955 , clearly hold that Section 5 applies to all criminal appeals.2. The main question that arises for decision in these petitions is, whether the terms of ...
In Re: Mannem Edukondalu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ1230
ORDERUmamaheswaram, J.1. The petitioner filed an application for bail before the Sessions Judge, Guntur, when he was committed to take his trial under Sections 302 and 309, Indian Penal Code. The application was filed on 19th September, 1955 and the Sessions Judge directed notice to be given by the petitioner's counsel to the Public Prosecutor. The advocate for the Petitioner contended that he was under no obligation to give notice to the Public Prosecutor. The Sessions Judge held that the Court was entitled to direct notice before granting bail and overruled the contention addressed on behalf of the petitioner. The learned Judge also held, on the merits, that it was not a fit and proper case for granting bail. As against this order, the petitioner has preferred the revision case.2. Sri T. V. Sarma, the learned Advocate, repeated the argument, namely, that he was not bound to give notice, though directed to do so by the Sessions Judge. It is conceded that notice is given to the Public ...
Sm. Haradevi Vs. State of Andhra and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-1956
Reported in: AIR1957AP229
Viswanatha Sastry, J.1. This is an appeal against the order 'of Satyanarayana Raju, J., dismissing an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Kurnool, dated 31-12-1953, requisitioning a house alleged to belong to the petitioner and made under Section 4(1) of the Requisition of Buildings (Andhra Area) Ordinance (1 of 1953). The petitioner before the learned Judge, who is also the appellant before us, is Haradevi, the wife of Pamandas Sugnaram, a Banker and money-lender, residing and carrying on business in Kurnool town. At the relevant date the petitioner and her husband were either the owners or the lessees of four houses in Kurnool town which have been referred to, for the sake of convenience, as houses A, B, C and D in the judgment of the learned Judge.Houses A and C were rented building in which Sugnaram, the lessee, was carrying on his business. The title of the Houses B and D stands in the name of Ha...
Ramamurthy (M) Vs. State of Madras and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-1956
Reported in: (1957)IILLJ238AP
ORDERUmamaheswaran, J.1. These are two applications filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of writs of certiorari to call for records in G.O. Ms. No. 2005, dated 9 July 1952, and in departmental enquiry No. 31 of 1950, dated 29 December 1950, and to quash the orders passed by the Government and the tribunal respectively.The petitioner was working as grain purchase tahsildar in Tadepalligudem in 1947-48. Four charges were framed against him by the tribunal for disciplinary proceedings in departmental enquiry No. 31 of 1950. The tribunal held that charges 3 and 4 were not proved. In respect of charge 1, the tribunal found as follows:Under charge 1, I have held that, with full knowledge that the excess stock in the possession of the miller Uma Kasi Viswanathan had been seized by the police, the accused officer connived with him in regularizing it by allowing him to issue E forms in the names of his brothers and thereby he caused loss to the Government to the extent of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »