Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
Seriveti Kotiswamy and ors. Vs. State of Andhra
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-1956
Reported in: 1958CriLJ152
ORDERKrishna Rao, J.1. These revision petitions have been filed under Sections 435 and 439 of Criminal Procedure Code by the different accused in several preliminary inquiry cases, questioning the orders committing them for trial before Courts of Session. Except in Criminal Revision Case No 349 of 1956 in which the commitment was ordered by an Additional District Magistrate in the exercise of his powers of revision under Section 437, Criminal Procedure Code, all the orders of commitment were made by the Magistrates under Sub-section 10 of Section 207A, Criminal Procedure Code.In all the revision petitions a common point of law is raised that Section 207-A, Criminal Procedure Code which was newly inserted in the code by the amendment Act XXVI of 1955, is void as it is inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution. The contention is that the two kinds of procedure prescribed by Section 207 for commitals, one under Section 207-A for such inquiries instituted on police reports and the o...
In Re: Sheikh Umar Saheb Alias Umra
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ919
Chandra Reddy, J.1. I would like to add a few words regarding the value to be attached to the evidence of eye-witnesses. In support of the proposition that no weight should be attached to the testimony of child-witnesses Mr. Basi Reddy, counsel for the appellant cited to us, two rulings one of Lahore High Court in Abbas v. Emperor AIR 1933 Lah 667(A) and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Mohamad Sugal v. King 1946 Mad. W.N. 101 : (AIR 1946 PO 3)(B). In the first of the two cases, it was observed by the learned Judges that, in considering the evidence of child-witnesses, the observations (which will be referred to immediately) should not be lost sight of although each would depend upon its particular facts and circumstances. The passage which was the basis of these observations of the learned Judges is extracted from the Outlines of Criminal Law page 336 by Dr. Kenny, Downing Professor of the Laws of England, Cambridge University.Children are a most untrustworthy class o...
State of Andhra Vs. Arisetty Sriramulu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-1956
Reported in: [1957]8STC153(AP)
Subba Rao, C.J. 1. The question in this case turns upon the interpretation of section 12-A(6)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. A Division Bench of this Court held in Chandaji Kubaji & Co. v. State of Andhra ([956] 7 S.T.C. 332; 69 L.W. (Andhra) 43) that under that section, a review could be ordered only if new facts not placed before the Tribunal on the pervious occasion were brought to their notice subsequently but it would not apply to a case where new evidence was sought to be adduced to support basic facts already placed before the Tribunal. As the question now raised in important from the standpoint to assessees under the Act in this State, we think, in the interest of finality, an authoritative decision on the interpretation of the section should be given by a Full Bench of this Court. We, therefore, refer the following question to the Full Bench :-'What is the correct interpretation of the provisions of section 12-A(6)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act ?'OPINION Visw...
S.A. Irani Vs. P.L. Narsimha Sastry
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-06-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ178
ORDER1. This is a revision on behalf of the accused who was charged under Sections 323, 427 and 504, I. P. C, After the statement of the complainant was recorded and summons was issued to the accused, a date was fixed for evidence on which day the complainant was absent and the Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 259, Cr. P. C. Subsequently an application was filed by the complainant praying that the complaint be restored, on the ground that his absence was accidental. The Magistrate came to the conclusion that he had jurisdiction to review the order that he passed and directed issue of summons to the accused. It is this order of the Magistrate that is attacked in this revision.2. The argument of the learned advocate for the accused is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to restore a complaint which had been dismissed for default. It would appear that his case did not reach the stage of trial but at the first hearing when the case was posted for evide...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›