Andhra Pradesh Court September 2004 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.
Kudasu Rajanna, S/O. Lachanna Vs. the State of A.P. Rep. by Public Pro ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-2004
Reported in: III(2005)BC42; 2005CriLJ190
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The appellant preferred this criminal appeal aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the judgment dated 31-7-1998 in Calendar Case No.6 of 1997 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad. The charge sheet was filed against the appellant/accused for the offences under Sections 4 and 5 (i) (ii) and (iii) of Prize, Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Act for the purpose of convenience) in Crime No.52 of 1997 on the file of Adilabad I Town Police Station. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused started money circulation scheme in the name of Indira Finance in the premises bearing Door No.4/3-135/3 near Anand Bhavan Lodge, Adilabad. He enrolled 1500 members by taking deposit of Rs.200/- per month. The period of scheme is 5 1/2 years. The accused also issued receipts specifying the above facts by showing the maturity date as 10-12-2001. Thus...
Gaddala Deshaiah A-2 Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)219; 2005CriLJ828
P.S. Narayana, J.1. A-2, who was convicted for an offence under Section 364 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month in Sessions Case No. 101 of 1995 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, on 13-2-1998, had preferred the present appeal.2. Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, Counsel representing the appellant-accused No. 2 would: contend that the charges framed as against A-1 to A-5 in Sessions Case No. 101 of 1995 were under Sections 147, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and no specific charge was framed under Section 364 IPC. The learned counsel also would contend that Section 364 IPC is a substantive and distinct offence falling under different chapter altogether and in the absence of framing of a specific charge in this regard, serious prejudice is caused and thus, the trial itself is vitiated and the appellant-A-2 is entitled for an acquittal on this grou...
Modugula Mallikarjuna Reddy and anr. Vs. Government of A.P., Law Dept. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)ALT229
B. Prakash Rao, J.1. Heard Sri T. Bal Reddy the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and the learned Government Pleader for Law and Legislative Affairs, and Sri K.G. Kannabhiram, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents.2. The petitioners herein who are the accused Nos. 6 and 93 respectively, filed this Writ Petition, inter alia, seeking for Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned proceedings in G.O. Rt. No. 1212 Law (L.A. and J. Courts A.2) Department dated 23-8-2000, issued by the 1st respondent herein, appointing the respondent No. 4 herein as a Special Public Prosecutor and the respondent No. 5 as his assistant to conduct the prosecution in S.C. No. 36/1993 on the file of the Special Sessions Court for Trial of Cases, Guntur, under S.Cs. & S.Ts. (POA) Act, 1989, as illegal and arbitrary.3. The case of the petitioners in brief is that in respect of an incident occurred on 6-8-1991 at Tsundur village, Guntur District, a c...
Karvy Securities Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-2004
Reported in: 2006[2]STR481
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This Court has granted stay earlier. Vacate Stay petition has been filed along with the counter-affidavit. Since pleadings are complete, and we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, writ petition itself is disposed of at this stage.3. The petitioners are aggrieved of Circular No. 66/15/2003-S.T., dated 5-11-2003 issued by the second respondent. The circular reads as under:I am directed to say that some doubts have been raised regarding application of service tax on the activity of Mutual Fund Distribution as to whether1. the commission received by distributors on mutual fund distribution as liable to Service Tax under the category of Business Auxilliary Services ?2. the services provided is exempt from service tax in terms of Notification No. 13/2003, dated 20-6-2003 ?In this connection, it is clarified that the services provided as referred above are primarily in nature of the services of commission agent in rel...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›