Andhra Pradesh Court November 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: M. Sambayya
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-28-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ729
ORDERBasi Reddy, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under Section 353, Indian Penal Code and has been directed to be released under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act on his executing a bond for Rs. 500/- with two sureties each for a like sum, to be of good behaviour and to keep the peace for a period of two years.2. The charge against the petitioner was that he had used criminal force and obstructed the Executive Officer of Giddalur Panchayat Board while the said Officer was inspecting the petitioner's shop at Giddalur on 29-9-1955. The Executive Officer is said to have entered the petitioner's shop and demanded from the petitioner, who is an oil merchant, a sample of the oil for the purpose of ascertaining whether the petitioner had committed an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The petitioner refused to do so on the ground that the Executive Officer had no authority to seize the oil and he is further stated to have pushed the Execut...
In Re: S. Abdul Jabbar and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ856
ORDERBasi Reddy, J.1. These revision petitions are preferred against the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, affirming the orders of the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Nandikotkur, directing the laying of complaints against the petitioners for offences under Section 193, Indian Penal Code.2. The facts which gave rise to these petitions are as follows .-The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur,. had filed a charge-sheet against three persona viz., Narayana Chetty, Ramalingam Chetty and their sister Eswaramma under Section 364 and Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, alleging that they had abducted one Salu Miah and caused: his death on the night of 25-7-1955 at Voddet Manu. The three petitioners were cited as eyewitnesses to the occurrence. During the investigation the Sub-Magistrate of Kurnool recorded the statements of these petitioners under Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code. In those statements the petitioners stated on oath that they had witnessed th...
M.V. Bhadraiah Setti Vs. State of Andhra (Now Andhra Pradesh)
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-22-1957
Reported in: [1959]10STC222(AP)
Subba Rao, C.J.1. This revision is filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Guntur, confirming that of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur, dismissing the appeal preferred to him against the order of the Commercial Tax Officer, Anantapur, assessing the petitioners to sales tax.2. The petitioners are a firm by name M. V. Bhadriah-Bundappa carrying on business in mandi goods, cloth and tamarind seeds at Hindupur situated in the State of Andhra Pradesh. During the year 1953-54, they sold goods to the Mysore Starch Manufacturing Company carrying on business in the Mysore State. The turnover in respect of those transactions was Rs. 1, 20, 532. The assessees made return of monthly turnover of their business during the year 1953-54. On 10th March, 1955, the Commercial Tax Officer, Anantapur, issued a notice to them asking them to produce their accounts for his scrutiny. After making the prescribed enquiry on 6th September, 1955, the finally assessed the ...
Sri Karutha Kritya Rameswaraswami Varu Represented by Its Executive Of ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-22-1957
Reported in: AIR1960AP17
ORDERBhimasankaram, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the issue of a Writ of Certi-orari for removing to this Court the records in I. A. No. 117 of 1952 in A. S. No. 456 of 1950 on the file of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vijayanagaram and quashing the same.2. The petitioner is the Executive Officer of the temple of Sri Krutha Kritya Rameswaraswami Vanu situate in Gudimoola Rameswaram, a village in Rajole Taluk in East Godavari District. The temple owns an inam known as Gudimoola Khandrika. After the Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948 (Madras Act XXVI of 1948) was passed, the Seltlement Officer, Vijayawada initiated proceedings suo motu under Section 9 of the Act to determine whether the Khandrika aforesaid is an inam estate as defined in Section 2 (7) of the Act.It was contended on behalf of the Devasthanam that the grant was neither of a whole village, nor of a named village, that it consisted only of part of the vil...
Public Prosecutor Vs. A.V. Ramiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ737
Basi Reddy, J.1. This case has been referred to a Division Bench by our learned brother Manohar Pershad J., as it Involves an important question of law relating to the interpretation of Section 13 of the Madras Gaming Act, 1930.2. This is an appeal by the State Government against an order of acquittal passed by the First Class Bench Magistrate, Gudivada, in Calendar Case No. 8 of 1956 on his file.3. This case reveals a regrettable state of affairs and depicts the non-co-operative attitude adopted by some police officers in the conduct of criminal cases before Magistrates.4. The facts are as follows:On 27-1-1956 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudivada Town, filed a charge-sheet against the respondent in the Court of the First Class Bench Magistrate, Gudivada, under Section 12 of the Madras Gaming Act alleging that on 26-1-1956 at about 4 p. m., the respondent was found gaming with cards and money along with some others in Pedayerukapadu fields at Gudivada.Three witnesses were cited for th...
Akurati Ranganayakulu Vs. Goli Subba Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ726
Subba Rao, C.J.1. This is a revision against the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narasaraopet, setting aside the order made by the Sub-Magfetrate, Chirala, directing the complainant to pay compensation of Rs. 50/- to the accused under Section 250(2), Cr.PC or, to suffer simple imprisonment for 30 days.2. The facts lie in a small compass. The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of the Sub-Magistrate under Section 355, IPC alleging that he beat him with the shoe of his right leg on his left cheek near the market. The Sub-Magistrate found on the evidence that the complaint was false and vexatious and, on that finding, discharged the accused under Section 250(2), Cr.PC He also directed the complainant to pay compensation of Rs. 50/- to the accused under Section 250(2), Cr.PC or to suffer sample imprisonment for thirty days in default.The complainant filed an appeal against the order directing him to pay compensation to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, ...
Kompalli Nageswara Rao and ors. Vs. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acq ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-1957
Reported in: AIR1959AP52
Umamaheswaram, J.1. I have perused the judgment prepared by mylearned brother and I agree with his conclusion offact. But, in regard to the question of the admissibility of the Judgments of the High Court filedalong with C. M. P. No. 2723 of 1957 and markedas additional evidence by this Court, I am inclinedts take a different view. 2. Under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the Court has to determine the market value of the land as on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 Sub-section (1). Dealing with this expression 'the market value'. Lord Romer observed in the well-known Lova Garden Case, Narayana, Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divisional Officer Vizagapatam, ILR 1939 Mad 532 at p. 543: (AIR 1939 PC 98 at p. 102} (A), as follows:'There is not in general any market for land is the sense in which one speaks of a market for shares or a market for sugar or any like commodity. The value of any such article at any particular time can readily be ascertained by ...
Gudivada Madhava Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-12-1957
Reported in: [1959]35ITR481(AP)
Bhimasankaram, J.1. The petition seeks the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Income-tax Officer, Guntur, to consider the claim of the petitioner and give relief under section 25(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act.2. The facts leading up to the petition may be briefly stated thus : The petitioner's father who carried on a tobacco business was an income tax assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1918, and for the assessment year 1948-49, he was assessed as an individual. There was a partition of the joint Hindu family consisting of the father and four sons on February 25, 1948, under a registration deed of partition. Thereunder the four sons became entitled to the business as a firm. The petitioner informed the Income-tax Officer of the factotum of the petition and the estimated total income of the business for the broken period January 1, 1948, to February 25, 1948, at Rs. 8, 050. By his letter dated June 22, 1948, the Income-tax Officer wrote to the petitioner that the family should f...
Gowri Thimma Reddy and ors. Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ606
ORDERRanganadham Chetty, J.1. Two questions arise in this revision:1) that the First Class Magistrate, Dharma arm has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence with which the accused are charged, and2. that the very act of taking cognizance under a repealed provision of law is vitiated.2. The facts are: The wife prosecuted the husband with an offence punishable under Section 494, I.P.C., i.e., bigamy. The second marriage of the husband had taken place on 27-5-1955. On 31-5-1955 the wife made the complaint and gave her sworn statement too. The case was taken on file by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that very day under Section 4 of the Madras Hindu Bigamy Prevention and Divorce Act, 1949.3. The husband and the other accused raised an objection to jurisdiction and the validity of entertaining the complaint by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The contentions were found against. They moved the Sessions Court for referring the case to the High Court. That petition, too, was not allowed...
Macherlappa and Sons Vs. Government of Andhra (Now Andhra Pradesh)
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-1957
Reported in: [1958]9STC156(AP)
Subba Rao, C.J.1. These two revisions arise out of the order of the Andhra Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of assessments made by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tadpatri, on the petitioner for the two years 1952-53 and 1953-54. The Sales Tax Authorities having held that the return of the turnover was not true, estimated the turnover and assessed him on a total turnover of Rs. 12, 452-6-1 for 1952-53 and Rs. 10, 353-9-6 for 1953-54. The orders of the Commercial Tax Officers were confirmed by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal discloses that the assessee only argued before them two questions, viz., that they were petty dealers and that the writing found in the books and letters found in their business place were those of an insane son of the dealer and that they should not be relied upon. The arguments were rejected, and the appeals were dismissed. Hence the revisions.2. Learned counsel for the assessee argued that before the Tribunal, on behalf of the assessee, it was c...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »