Skip to content

Andhra Pradesh Court July 1978 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.

Jul 04 1978

Enumula Subbarao and ors. Vs. the State

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Decided on: Jul-04-1978

Reported in: 1979CriLJ258

ORDERNarasinga Rao, J.1. This petition by the sixteen accused is laid for quashing the further charge framed against them under Section 228 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for an offence under Section 149, I. P. C. by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chirala.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are these: An F.I.R. was registered against the 16 accused on 8-9-1977 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vetapalem, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 324 and 326, I. P. C. alleged to have been committed by them on 7-9-1977. After investigation, a charge-sheet was laid by the Sub-Inspector on 3011-77 for the offence under Sections 148, 324, 326, 307 and 149 I. P. C. The Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Chirala, committed the accused to Sessions, as one of the offences i. e., the offence under Section 307 I. P. C. was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. On receipt of the committal order, the Sessions Judge, Ongole, made over the case t...


Jul 03 1978

Chaparala Nageswara Rao Vs. Authorised Officer Land Reforms, Gudivada, ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Decided on: Jul-03-1978

Reported in: AIR1979AP21

ORDER1. The declarant is the petitioner. He filed a declaration under Section 8 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling and Agricultural Holdings) Act (Act 1 of 1973). The first Tribunal held that he holds an excess of 0.0580 standard holdings. On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal gave some relief and the surplus got reduced to 0.0256 standard holdings.2. In this revision, Shri Tatarao, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the declarant sold an extent of Ac. 2-28 cents an 22-10-1971 to one Potluri Mallikharjuna Rao, P. W. 2. and it was registered On 30-10-1971 and ever since the sale, the purchaser has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land and therefore, the same ought to have been excluded. The lower Appellate Tribunal rejected this contention mainly on the ground that the transferor has not satisfactorily established the necessity for selling the land and that the cist receipts for all the continuous faslies have not been filed and ultimately held tha...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial