Andhra Pradesh Court October 1957 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.
In Re: Shankerappa and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ733
Basi Reddy, J.1. This Referred Trial and the connected batch of Criminal Appeals arise out of Sessions Case No. 10/8 of 1957 on the file of the Court of Session, Medak Division. The seven accused, who are the appellants herein, were tried on charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 and under. Sections 147, 324 and 326, IPC The learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused under Section 147 and convicted all of them under Sections 302, 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 34, IPCUnder Section 302 he sentenced A-l to A-5 and A-7 to death and to a fine of Rs. 5 each and A-6 to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs, 5. under Section 326 each of the accused was sentenced to 8 years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 5; under Section 307 each of them was sentenced to 7 years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 5; and under Section 324 each of them was sentenced to 2 years' R. I. The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.2. The facts of the prosecution case are as follows:3. P.W. 7 i...
Kakkirala Rama Rao and Another Vs. Income-tax Officer, Rajahmundry Cir ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-24-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR457(AP)
JAGANMOHAN REDDY - This is a petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to make payment of the amount as per the order in General Index No. 62-R dated April 30, 1949, issued in favour of the petitioners or to issue any appropriate writ or direction to the respondent and pass such other or further orders as the court think fit. The petitioners carried on business under the name and style of Kakkirala Rama Rao & Sons, at Rajahmundry, consisting of of Kakkirala Rama Rao and his two sons, Kamaraju and Aatmaram. The firm of the joint family was assessed to income-tax for the year 1948-49 at Rs. 140-12-0 and after this sum was deducted from the advance of Rs. 3,375-15-0 paid under section 18A of the Indian Income-tax Act, a sum of Rs. 3,336-2-0 including interest thereon became refundable. An order to that effect was ought to have been passed on April 30, 1949, in which it was also stated a refund voucher for the said sum will be sent later on; but in spite of remi...
In Re: Parchuri Adeshamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-22-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ475
Basi Reddy, J.1. In these two petitions the question is raised as to whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act apply to Sub-section 4 of Section 417 of the Criminal procedure Code. If they do, the High Court has the power, notwithstanding the peremptory provisions of the said Sub-section, to condone the delay in filing an application for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of, acquittal.2. This question was considered by umamaheswaram J., in purchelapalle Venkata Subbareddi v. Duvvuru Papireddy A.I.R. 1957 Andh Pra 406 (A), and we are in agreement with the conclusion reached by the learned Judge.3. By the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1955 (Act XXVI of 1955), for the first time in our penal system, the Legislature conferred on a private complainant a right of appeal from an order of acquittal. Apparently being conscious of the danger inherent in giving such a right to a private party, the Legislature imposed a two-fold restriction on ...
In Re: Chinchoo Lingayya and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ1001
ORDERSyed Qamar Hassan, J.1. Chinchoo Lingayya, Akula Kishlayya, Parameshwara Reddy, Ramchandra Reddy and Rajeshwar Reddy were charge-sheeted before the District Magistrate Adilabad, Under Sections 395 and 398, I. P. Code.. The accusation against them was that on the night intervening the 11th and 12th January 1955 at about 10-30 P. M., they, armed with. hand-grenades and jambias, entered Into, the house of Bhojanoa, P.W. 1 at Langdapur anit conjointly committed robbery of property, worth its. 1120/-. Thereafter they went to the house of Saiga, P.W. 22 and made an attempt to commit dacoity but due to the arrival of villagers they took to their heels without achieving their object.2. The prosecution examined 26 witnesses and 9 witnesses were produced on behalf of the accused. The District Magistrate by his judgment of 17th August 1955 convicted them under Section 395 read with. Section 109, I. P. Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to a fine of Rs....
Somisetti Subbarayalu Setti and ors. Vs. Rangiah Chetty
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ1003
ORDERJaganmohan Reddy, J.1. By this petition the petitioners seek to have the charges framed against them in C. C No. 555 of 1957 by the Judicial IInd Class Magistrate, Badvel, quashed. A-1 is the son-in-law of A-2 who is the mother of A-3. The charge framed is that A-1 and A-2 on or about the 30th day of September, 1954 at Proddutur committed a theft in a building and that A-3 at Proddutur abetted A-1 and A-2 in the commission of the said offence of theft which was committed as a consequence of his abetment. A-1 and A-2 were charged on 27-7-1957 under Section 380, IPC while A-3 was charged of the abetment of that offence under Section 109 read with Section 380 IPC In Sriram v. State of Hyderabad ILR (1953) Hyd 293 (A) a Bench of the erstwhile Hyderabad Court, of which I was a party, held that interference in revision by the High Court in pending criminal proceedings should be rare unless the impropriety is a flagrant one and immediate action is necessary to prevent injustice. It is un...
Alapati Ramaswami Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-1957
Reported in: [1959]35ITR73(AP)
SUBBA RAO, C.J. - This reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act raises the following question :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sums of Rs. 8,300, Rs. 8,020 and Rs. 35,000 (R. A. Nos. 1347 of 1952-53, 1348 of 1952-53 and 1349 of 1952-53) respectively could be regarded as income liable to be assessed.'The facts that gave rise to the reference may be briefly stated. The Assessee is a money-lender carrying on business since a few decades. During the course of his business, he advanced loans to several persons. In the case of some debtors, presumably because they were not able to repay the advance in cash, he took their lands in discharge of their debts. On September 17, 1935, he took 3 acres 51 cents of land in Upparapalem owned by one of his debtors, Shaik Nanne Bibi of Vinukonda, valued at Rs. 2,000 in full discharge of his debt. But on September 27, 1945, the said extent was sold and a sum of Rs. 10...
M. Raj Reddy Vs. Shantamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ1006
ORDERSyed Qamar Hasan, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Magistrate, Karimnagar, dated 23-11-1955 by which he disallowed the application of the petitioner under Section 489 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced before us a few facts need be mentioned. The petitioner is the adopted son of the respondent. The respondent applied for maintenance under Section 411 of the Hyderabad Criminal Procedure Code. Her petition was granted and she. was awarded an allowance of Rs. 15/- per mensem.After the order was made, it appears, the petitioner filed an application for reduction in the maintenance amount on the ground that his income had decreased and therefore he was not in a position to pay Rs. 15/- per month. This application was disallowed on 24-2-1954, Against that order, the petitioner went in revision to the District Court, which was disallowed op 20-5-1954.The application out of which this revision arises was filed on 13-4-1955...
Gollapudi Pullayya Company Vs. State of Andhra (Now Andhra Pradesh)
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-1957
Reported in: [1958]9STC24(AP)
Bhimasankaram1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff (a firm) in O.S. No. 200 of 1948 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur. It instituted the suit for a declaration that the order of assessment made against it under the Madras General Sales Tax Act by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Guntur, dated 28th March, 1947, is null and void and for recovery of the sum of Rs. 3, 215-3-0 which had been collected from it by the Government pursuant to that order. The plaintiff-firm had a licence as a commission agent under section 8 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and was also doing independent business of its own. It submitted its return for the year 1945-46 on 31st March, 1946, and showed its commission agency turnover therein as Rs. 3, 07, 394-4-6, for which it claimed exemption. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer was not satisfied with the return and a notice Ex. B-3 dated 5th March, 1947, was issued under rule 9 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 19...
S. AllauddIn Sahib and Company Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-1957
Reported in: [1958]9STC14(AP)
ORDERBhimasankaram1. The petitioner is a firm which is carrying on business in untanned hides and skins and which took out a licence under section 5 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. It objects to certain notices issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Cuddapah, directing it to produce accounts for the purpose of assessing the tax leviable under rule 16(2)(ii) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939. It is contended in the first instance on its behalf that the rules make a distinction between licensed and unlicensed dealers and that the classification embodied in sections 5 and 6-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act is unreasonable and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution. A similar contention was negatived by the Bench of this Court in Syed Mohammed & Co. v. State of Andhra (1956 7 S.T.C. 465; 1956 A.L.T. 706). The Divisional Bench followed the decision reported in State of Madras v. K. H. Chambers Ltd. : AIR1955Mad314 , and held that the classifi...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›