Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Samudrala Satyanarayana
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-06-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ1375
Manohar Prasad, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the State against the order of acquittal passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nuzvid.2. The facts which give rise to this appeal are : The respondent is a resident of Nuzvid and was running a grocery shop in D. No. 4/178. On 21-3-.1956. at about 4-30 p.m. the Sanitary Inspector along with the Sanitary Mistry inspected the shop of the accused and found turmeric powder in a tin which was intended for sale. The Sanitary Inspector purchased a sample of it for Re. 0-1-9 and obtained a receipt, Ex. P-l. He divided_ the sample in equal parts and sealed the stuff in three bottles. He gave one bottle to the respondent and sent one sample bottle to the Government analyst and the third to the Court. The Government analyst certified that the sample was adulterated with 25 parts of foreign adulterant and that it also contained 12 parts of lead to a million parts.The Sanitary Inspector seized the remaining quantity of the termeric powder in the...
Anantam Veeraju and ors. Vs. Valluri Venkayya Alias Venkamma (Died) an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-06-1957
Reported in: AIR1960AP222
Chandra Reddy, J.1. These appeals arise out of O. S. No. 80 of 1949 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Kakinada. A. S. No. 637 of 1952 is brought by defendants 1 to 7, 31 to 33, 39, 49 and 50; A. S. No. 684 of 1952 brought by defendants 74 to 77 and 82, and A. S. No. 144 of 53 by defendants 35 to 38 and 40 to 48. The subject matters of these appeals are items 1 to 7, 20. 21, 22, 24 to 30 of plaint A schedule. The petition of the plaint was presented at the instance of two persons by name Venkamma and Sattiraju as reversioners to the estate of one Amutam Venkataswamy who died in or about the year 1887 and was directed against as many as 84 defendants as being in possession of property belonging to the reversioners. The 1st plaintiff is the daughter of the said Venkataswamy and the 2nd plaintiff her son. It is useful and necessary to give a resume of the facts us briefly as possible.2. Venkataswamy, aforementioned, had incurred debts both on promissory notes and mortgages. On the fo...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Duggurala Amarababu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-05-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ122
Manohar Pershad, J.1. This is an appeal' against the judgment in B. C. No. 627 of 1955 on the file of the First Class Bench, Gudivada, dated 3rd February. 1856, acquitting the respondent per majority opinion.2. The facts in brief are : A charge sheet was filed under Sections 199 and 317 of the District Municipalities Act, by the Commissioner, Gudivada Municipality, against the respondent for having commenced construction of a terraced building without obtaining licence under Section 199 of the above Act, The respondent denied the offence. Two witnesses were examined. Three Magistrates constituting the Bench held the respondent not guilty and acquitted him on the grounds that notice was necessary before prosecuting the accused and that service of notice was not proper, The remaining two Magistrates took a different view and held the respondent guilty.3. Shri Bhimaraju, the learned Public Prosecutor contended first that the majority view was based on an erroneous assumption that notice w...
Peddi Virayya Vs. Doppalapudi Subba Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-02-1957
Reported in: AIR1959AP647
Chandra Reddy, J. 1. This appeal is brought by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit for accounts against the 1st defendant and for recovery of Rs. 6209-11-8 from the 2nd defendant. The main allegations in the plaint were that in the year 1947 the plaintiff employed the 1st defendant to purchase tobacco as his agent from cultivators, that the latter accordingly bought some tobacco which was paid for by the plaintiff and delivered to him in several cases, that he gave Rs. 10,350/- to the 2nd defendant on 11-4-19-17 to be paid to the 1st defendant but the latter acknowledged only a sum of Rs. 5,000/- out of that amount, that the 1st defendant failed to render account of the amounts received by him in spite of repeated demands and that the 2nd defendant had not given any satisfactory answer with regard to the amount entrusted to him. 2. The suit was contested by the 1st defendant inter alia on the ground that the contract between him and the plaintiff was illegal as being oppose...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›