Andhra Pradesh Court July 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.
Kalluri Vema Reddy Vs. Reddi Gangi Reddi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-1956
Reported in: 1958CriLJ1118
Kumarayya, J.1. This is a petition made by a private party to revise the order of acquittal passed by the-Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddapah. The Government had a right of appeal but they did not choose to exercise that right. The case-relates to 45 persons as the accused with 27 charges against them which are indeed of a grave and serious character. All of them inter alia are charged with an offence of rioting armed with deadly weapons, an offence falling under Section 148, IPCThey are further charged with offences under Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 307 and Section 307 read with Section 149, IPC and Section 19(f) of Indian Arms Act. The incident took place in the broad day light when in the rattling sound of musketry and booming shots of un-licenced firearms law and order seemed to b$ temporarily paralysed and the whole village was struck with terror and filled, with horror. As many as four lives were lost and several persons who were made the targets of the assailants'...
Veeramachaneni Butchaiah Chowdary and ors. Vs. Nooli Venkata Subrahman ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ819
ORDERBhimasankaram, J.1. The question raised in these proceedings is one of considerable importance. It relates to the jurisdiction of an officer described as an Executive Magistrate to pass an attachment order under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. There are, in the Andhra State, a number of districts where the policy embodied in Article 50 of the Constitution of India 'of separating the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State' is being implemented while there are a few districts where it is not. Such separation, where it is in force, is effected not by legislation hut administratively under the terms of G. O Ms. No. 2304 Public (Separation) Department, dated 24-9-1952. originally issued by the Government of Madras (when the Andhra State was part of the Madras State) which still continues to be operative within the Stale of Andhra. This G. O. is styled as a 'Memorandum of instructions issued for the guidance of the Judicial and Executive Magist...
Sri Sitharama Rice and Oil Mills Vs. State of Andhra
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-1956
Reported in: [1956]7STC635(AP)
P. Satyanarayana Raju, J. 1. This is an application by the assessees for revising the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 213A of 1953. 2. The assessees are manufacturers of groundnut oil. They have started business on 26th August, 1951, and have registered themselves as manufacturers under rule 18 of the Sales Tax Turnover and Assessment Rules on 12th November, 1951. They claimed rebate under rule 18 of the Turnover and Assessment Rules in respect of the sales of the manufactured oil as from 26th August, 1951, which is the date of commencement of their business. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer allowed the rebate only from 12th November, 1951, the date of their registration as manufacturers, and disallowed the deduction claimed with effect from 26th August, 1951. The Commercial Tax Officer, on appeal, confirmed the assessment and dismissed the appeal.3. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the registration under rule 18(1) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules ...
In Re: Somappa
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ1209
ORDERBhimasankaram, J.1. The learned Sub-Magistrate, Aluru, has, in this case, passed the following order.-The advocate is informed that an amount of Rs. 300, has to be deposited in this office towards foatta to he payable at Sessions Court, Kurnool, at the time of trial in P. R. G. No. 15 of 1955 (S.C. No. 8 of 1956) within 7 days of the receipt of this memo. The D. Ws. will not be bound over for their appearance before Sessions Court. Kurnool until the amount is deposited.This must be treated as specially urgent.2. Mr. Ramachandar Rao for the accused-petitioner argues that this order is contrary to the terms of the Criminal Procedure Code. He relies on Atchutha Rao v. Emperor 1936 Mad WN 1093 (A), where it was held that an order of a Magistrate that'except as regards those residents within six miles of the Court house no summons will issue to the others unless the licensed deposited a sum Of Rs. 500 before that very evening was wrong and contrary to the provisions of Section 257, Cri...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›