Andhra Pradesh Court January 1964 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: Madiga Boosenna and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1964AP429; 1964CriLJ271
ORDERMohammed Mirza, J.1. The petitioners were convicted by the trial Court under Section 4 (1) (A) of the Prohibition Act and their convictions and sentences were confirmed on appeal by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurnool. In this revision petition, the point raised before me is that, the prosecution did not prove by convincing and cogent evidence that the alleged article that was seized from the petitioners, which they are alleged to be transporting, was arrack or alcohol or any prohibited article. Both the Courts below have relied on the evidence of P. W. 1, who is the Sub-Inspector and P. W. 4, who is a petty-officer of the Prohibition Department. They have stated that one tin was not sealed and when they smelt, it was found to be arrack. Then again all the seals of the other 12 tins were pierced and they also smelt of arrack'. This evidence has been accepted by both the Courts below. The petitioners, while being examined by the trial Magistrate under Section 342, Cr. P. C., denied t...
Union of India (Uoi) Owning Southern Rly., Represented by Its General ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-13-1964
Reported in: AIR1964AP477
Chandra Reddy, C.J. 1. All these appeals and revisions preferred against the judgments of different Courts in the State raise a common question relation to liability of the Railway administration for the loss of goods occasioned in the circumstances that will appear presently, and so could be disposed of in one judgment.2. Appeals Nos. 370/1955, 575/1957, 15, 70, 38 and 37 of 1958 deal with O. S. Nos. 109 and 113 of 1953 and 52 to 55 of 1954 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Narsapur, while A. S. Nos. 369/1957, 241/1959, 250/1959 and 169/1958 are against the judgments of the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada in O. S. Nos 154/1933, 63/1954, 74/1955 and 6/1956, S. A. Nos. 502, 913 and 914 of 1957 are preterred against judgments in A. S Nos. 359/1955 (Sub-Court, Eluru) and 55 and 56 of 1955 (Sub-Court, Narsapur) respectively. S. C. Nos. 405, 287, 285, 286 and 646 of 1953 and 155 and 294/1954 have given rise to C. R. P. Nos 1118/1954 and 886, 888 and 889 of 1959 and 1361 of 1956 and 1029 and...
Shafeeq Shameem and Co. and anr. Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh and o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-1964
Reported in: [1964]15STC828(AP)
Anantanarayana Ayyar, J.1. Muhammad Abdul Khader filed W. P. No. 195 of 1962 praying for a writ of prohibition or other appro priate writ or order directing the two respondents to forbear and desist from further proceedings to assess him to sales tax for the assessment year 1957-58 in pursuance of a notice dated 15th February, 1962, issued by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderabad III, who is the second respondent. The first respondent is the State of Andhra Pra desh. The same petitioner filed a similar writ petition, W.P. No. 1110 of 1961 regarding the assessment year 1961-62 and W. P. No. 312 of 1963 regarding the assessment year 1958-59. In all the three writ petitions, there are the same two respondents and the same points are involved.2. Shafeeq Shameem & Co., skin merchants of Vijayanagaram, filed W. P. No. 929 of 1961 praying for a writ of certiorari and prohibition or any other appropriate writ or direction, for quashing the Order of assessment No. 6094/59-60 dated 30th D...
In Re: C.R. Mallikarjana Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-1964
Reported in: AIR1964AP438; 1964CriLJ376
ORDERMohamed Mirza, J.1. In C. C. No. 6593 of 196G, on the file of the Third City Magistrate, Hyderabad a petition was filed on behalf of the prosecution Under Section 510, A, Criminal Procedure Code, praying that the evidence of the witnesses namely (1) Sri S. R. Y. Sivarani Prasad Bahadur Raja of Challa-palli, Hon'ble Minister for Public Health Hyderabad and (2) Sri M. Krishnaiah Shetty, I. P. S, Deputy Director Central Intelligence Bureau, Madras, may be permitted to be given by way of affidavits. It was also stated therein that these witnesses are of a high rank and status, that their evidence is of a formal character and that the allegations contained in Ex. P-26 were not germane to the inquiry as their evidence is only to deny some of the allegations in Ex. P-26. It was further stated that as witnesses Nos. 10 and 13 cited in the list of witnesses were not cross-examined by the defence, the witnesses whose evidence is sought to be given by affidavits are also of the same nature.2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›