Chennai Court July 1947 Judgments
In Re: Godala Sanyasi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad251; (1947)2MLJ383
ORDERRajamannar, J.1. In C.C. No. 40 of 1946 on the file of the Additional First Glass Magistrate, Tanuksu,' accused, 1 and 3 were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs,. 40 each in respect of each of the offences under Sections 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. Accused 2, 4, 5 and 6 were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30 each under each of the Sections 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code. The six accused filed an appeal to the Sessions Judge, West Godavari. The learned Sessions Judge held that the appeal was not maintainable because there was no sentence of fine exceeding Rs. 50 and applied the provisions of Section 413 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Sessions Judge made a reference to two decisions of this Court in In re P. Venkataramqyya : (1939)2MLJ878 and Public Prosecutor v. K. Dasapai (1936) M.W.N. (Crl.) 37 which dealt with the construction of Section 415 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But I think it is unnecessary to refer either to that section or to th...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. R.T. Narasimha Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ220
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Public Prosecutor against an order acquitting the accused (respondent) of the charge for failure to pay the sales tax due from him within the time allowed, an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, read with Section 10.2. The accused was assessed on a turnover of Rs. 1,25,000 during the year 1944-45 and the notice calling upon him to pay the tax was received by the accused on 5th January, 1946. He was given 21 days' time for payment. On failure to pay, this prosecution was initiated against him by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Chittoor.3. The plea of the accused was that he transacted the business in question only in the capacity of an agent and not as a 'dealer' and that therefore he was not liable to pay the tax. This plea was accepted by the Additional First Class Magistrate, who held that the accused only acted as broker or commission agent who brought the seller and the...
Tag this Judgment!K. Doddana Gowd Vs. Aralapurada Sankarappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ335
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed by the plaintiff to revise the order of the learned District Munsiff of Hospet in I.A. No. 248 of 1945 in O.S. No. 113 of 1945 disallowing an application for leave to amend the plaint. The plaintiff instituted the suit on the strength of a sale deed dated 9th March, 1940, executed by the defendants in his favour for a declaration of his title to the plaint schedule mentioned properties and for recovery of possession with mesne profits. The defendants raised the contention in their written statement that the document executed in favour of the plaintiff was a nominal one and was also unenforceable. On 7th June, 1946, the plaintiff filed the application for leave to amend the plaint by adding paragraph 8(a) in the plaint claiming an alternative relief for a decree for Rs. 828, the consideration which he claims to have paid to the defendants under the sale deed.2. The learned District Munsiff dismissed the petition on the ground...
Tag this Judgment!Palla Veeraswami and anr. Vs. Bandaru Chitti Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ450
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings for passing a final decree in a suit for dissolution of partnership and for accounts. The first plaintiff and the first defendant were partners and commenced business as partners on 16th September, 1923. They carried on business in tobacco until July, 1925, when on account of disputes between them the business was stopped The first plaintiff then instituted this suit on 2nd February, 1926, for dissolution of the joint business and for taking accounts of the partnership. A preliminary decree dissolving the partnership was passed by the learned Subordinate Judge on 28th September 1931 and it had become final as there was no appeal against it. A Commissioner was appointed to take accounts and he submitted his report, dated 18th June 1933. The matter then came up for consideration before the learned Subordinate Judge after objections were filed by both parties. After considering the objections the learned subordinate Judge came ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K. Venkata Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad116; (1947)2MLJ218
ORDERRajamannar, J.1. The only question which arises in this revision petition is whether a confessional statement recorded by a Prohibition Sub-Inspector is not admissible in evidence because it is a confession made to a police officer. The decision turns upon whether a Prohibition Sub-Inspector can be deemed to be a ' Police officer ' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Pulivendla, has held that he is not and therefore the statement of the accused recorded by him is admissible.2. Mr. Jagannadha Das for the petitioner took me through all the relevant provisions of the Madras Prohibition Act. In particular he stressed upon the following provisions. Section 15 declares that all offences under the Act shall be cognizable and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, with respect to cognizable offences shall apply to them. Section 38 provides how a person arrested under the provisions of Sections 28, 29, 32, or 33 has t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Boreddi Kondamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad293; (1948)1MLJ1
1. These two appeals arise out of S.C. No. 47 of 1946 in the Court of Session, Cuddapah. C.A. No. 108 of 1947 is at the instance of the first accused, and C.A. No. 109 of 1947 at the instance of the second accused. Both are from jail. Both the accused were charged for the murder of one Vuttanna, by the second accused procuring oleander seeds and giving them to the first accused so that the latter might administer the poison to one Venkatamma in order to kill her in furtherance of a common intention.2. The first accused crushed an oleander seed and mixed it and arsenic in butter-milk and gave the butter-milk to Venkatamma but the said butter-milk was drunk by Venkatamma's relative Vuttanna and he died as a result thereof. Both the accused wer charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code.3. The learned Sessions Judge found on the evidence that it was clear that the second accused wanted to kill Venkatamma (P.W. 1) by poisoning her and that t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Akulu Paddayya Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad104; (1947)2MLJ255
ORDERChandrasekhar Aiyyar, J.1. The second accused who is the petitioner in this criminal revision case was convicted under Section 15(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, for failure to pay the tax due from him within the time allowed and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100. There was another accused in the case who was similarly convicted and fined, but he is not before us.2. The demand notice in Form No. B for the sales-tax due by the firm called Siddareddi Acharyulu and Sons was served on the first accused on 11th November, 1945. It is Ex. P-2. Though the second accused pleaded that he had nothing to do with the firm, it has now been found that he was a partner of the firm along with the first accused. This finding has not been challenged.3. What is urged on behalf of the petitioner is that as the demand notice was not served on him personally, he cannot be held liable under Section 15(b). As already stated, the demand notice Ex. P-2 was addressed to the firm and served on ...
Tag this Judgment!Dudekula Babakka of Kurlapalle Vs. D. Pedda Varadappa of Kurlapalle
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad119; (1947)2MLJ306
ORDERRajamannar, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Taluk Magistrate, Dharmavaram acquitting the accused in C.C. No. 1 of 1946 on his file for an offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code with which he was charged.2. The only point raised in this case on behalf of the complainant is that after the entire evidence was recorded the Magistrate inspected the alleged scene of offence and imported the impressions which he received from such inspection in the consideration and appreciation of the evidence and that his conclusion is vitiated by this irregularity. No doubt under Section 539-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate should have recorded a memorandum of the relevant facts, if any, observed by him. at such inspection and such a memorandum should form part of the record of the case and a copy of it should be furnished to the Public Prosecutor, complainant or the accused on application. It has not been shown that the Magistrate in this case made...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. K. Bhimeswara Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad258; (1947)2MLJ594
Rajamannar, J.1. This is an appeal against the acquittal of the accused in C.C. No. 55 of 1946 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ellore. He was charged with an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code for having dishonestly induced Kesaripalli Anjaneyulu, P.W. 1, and Umma Janardhana Rao, P.W. 2, to deliver to him Rs. 1,000.2. The accused was an auditor employed by P. Ws. 1 and 2 who were merchants jointly conducting tobacco business at Ellore to audit the accounts of their firm, to prepare their income-tax return and to look after their income-tax affairs. He had been so employed by them for over fifteen years. They sent their income-tax return for the assessment year 1944-45 some time in August, 1944. The case for the prosecution is that after the accounts were prepared for income-tax purposes the accused represented to them that their income was such that they would become liable to Excess Profits Tax and he undertook to see that they escaped such assessment if Rs. 1,000 wa...
Tag this Judgment!Alluri Venkatasuryanarayanaraju and ors. Vs. Pakalapati Sundararamacha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad118; (1947)2MLJ276
ORDERChandrasekhar Aiyyar, J.1. This is a revision directed against the order of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry, in M.C. No. 1 of 1946, holding that the property in dispute called Perugu Lanka was in the possession of the 'A' party, namely, Pakalapati Sundara Ramachandraraju, and that 'his possession shall continue' until he is evicted therefrom in due course of law. There is a direction that the attachment made on 24th April, 1946, be raised and that the ' A ' party should be put in possession of the land in dispute.2. It is apparent from the order itself that the possession on which reliance has been placed by the Magistrate for coming to the conclusion that the 'A' party was in such possession, commenced only in February, 1946. This is what he says:The indication of possession is, not the raising of bunds last year but the raising of bunds and the erection of cattle-shed this year in February, 1946. The jurisdiction of Magistrate under Section 145 of the Code of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »