Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1951CriLJ1299
ordersuryanarayana rao, j.1. this is a muslim husband's revision petition against an order of maintenance passed by the lower court awarding o, s. rs. 50 to his wife & two daughters aged 8 & 11.2. in his counter, the husband stated that ha had divorced his wife in 1854 fasli. the court, however, hold that the alleged divorce was not proved. in revision, i am not prepared to interfere with this finding of fact.3. learned advocate for the respondents argues in the alternative, as a question of law, that the statement by the husband in his written statement that he had divorced his wife will operate as divorce since it is an expression of his intention to divorce his wife. he relies on a division bench ruling of this high court in mohammed hussain v. rasul bi, 14 deccan l. r. 37 wherein it was held that a statement of the husband as having given tallak, made before the court operates as divorce. in abdul azeez v. kabira bi, 32 deccan l. r. 192, it was held that an endorsement by the husband on a notice issued by the court in maintenance proceedings, that he had divorced his wife operated as a declaration of divorce. this is a single bench judgment dated 18th farwardi 1351 fasli. learned advocate for the respondents refers me to another single bench ruling of the same learned judge who decided the last-mentioned case. that is the ruling in hussain begam v.mirzaturab ali khan 31deccan l.r.7. the data of this judgment is 13th mehir 1349 fasli and it was held that, where the wife .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1953CriLJ1136
1. this is an appeal against the conviction and sentence of the accused under sections 11 and 14 of the hyderabad arms regulation no. 13 of 1358 fasli and a legal question has arisen.2. the facts briefly are that the accused was charge-sheeted for unlawfully keeping in possession one spear-head. the question arises whether the possession of the said weapon it an offence under the said regulation. section 10 of the said regulation lays down that - no person shall have in his possession or under his control any cannon, fire arms, ammunition or military stores, except under a licence and in the manner and to the extent permitted thereby.3. it is clear that the accused had neither a cannon nor fire-arms, nor ammunition, nor military stores in his possession. it is only, the possession of these four categories of articles that has been prohibited unless under a licence by the act. the spear-head in question in this case is not included in that category. hence, the provisions of section 10 do not apply to this case and it cannot be said that the possession of the spear-head is an offence under the said section of the regulation. the learned government advocate has relied upon s, 11 of the regulation. the lower court also has held that section 11 of the regulation applies to this case. the urdu version of the regulation section 11 was read before us, and it appears to us that there is a lacuna in the urdu section. we, therefore, referred to the original regulation which is in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1951CriLJ918
order1. these are two applications for writs of habeas corpus : one by the wife, and another by the detenu himself from the jail. we are of opinion that these applications must succeed on the ground that the authorities concerned have not reviewed the case within six months as laid down by sub-section (2) of section 12 of the preventive detention act.2. the relevant dates in the case may be briefly narrated. the detenu was arrested on february 14, 1950, and on february 22, 1950, an order of detention under act iv of 1950 was passed, which was served on the detenu on march, 14, 1950. the grounds of detention were however not communicated immediately. the document containing them is dated august 28, 1960 and was served on september 8,1950. before reviewing the case, the authorities concerned sent the case to the special officer whom they wanted to consult. time was taken in obtaining such an opinion which did not take place till after the representation against the grounds of detention was received. the statement made on behalf of the authorities is that the review of the case was completed on september 27,1950, i. e., the review proceedings were not completed within six months from match 14, 1950.3. the argument of the learned government advocate is that under sub-section (2) of section 12 of the preventive detention act, it is not necessary for the review to be completed within six months, and it is a sufficient compliance with the statutory obligation if the proceedings be .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1951CriLJ916
order1. heard parties. this is a petn. for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of the detenu, gunoor mallappa, s/o siddappa of shamshabad. the facts alleged against him are that he has contravened the provision of section 3, essential supplies (temporary powers) act; 1946. an order of detention was served upon him on 28 1-1961 & he has been under detention since. a copy of grounds of detention was furnished to the detenu on the same date in which it is stated that he is a business man doing trade in sundry articles at shamshabad. it is stated that he owns an electrically driven flour mill, that he engaged surreptitiously in milling paddy for the purposes of black-marketing & that 9 seers of rice were seized by the s.i. of police on 11-l-1951 from his huller as also 217 seers of rice in two bags & some paddy bran cum husk. he failed to obtain the requisite licence to run the mills. f.i.r. dated is 12-1- 1951 was also filed in the ct. of the munsiff, western circle, hyderabad district, containing the very facts which are stated in the grounds informing the ct. that an offence under the essential supplies (temporary powers) act has been committed. as the authorities concerned had resorted to both the forms, i.e., of preventively detaining & seeking conviction in a ct. of law, we enquired of the public prosecutor on that date that out of the two courses which he would adopt & told him that either the detenu must be preventively detained & in that case the charge .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1951CriLJ901
order1. a challan was filed on 21-10.1950 against four persons under sections 359, 397 & 405 hyderabad penal code, & while the case was pending before the sp, mag, hyderabad, a notfn. was issued by the secretary, home dept., under section 495, hyderabad criminal p.c. transferring the ease from the file of the sp mag. to that of the chief city mag. hyderabad. this order of transfer of the govt. was questioned by two of the accused gesulal & gajanan before the chief city mag. who overruled the objection & posted the case for evidence. against this order, gesulal & gajanan hare filed revn. petns. to this ct. & also have invoked the jurisdiction of this ct. for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of transfer. these petns. came for hearing before a d. b. of this ct. and, having regard to the importance of the constitutional questions involved in the cases, they were referred to this f.b. we heard the arguments of the learned advocates in extense & we must say that the respective advocates have ably argued the cases.2. the first contention of the learned advocate for the petnrs. is that section 495, hyderabad criminal p.c. is inconsistent with the provisions of the const. ind. in that it violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution. his main argument is that article 14, const. ind. affords to all persons the equal protection of the laws & by reason of the transfer of the case from the ct. of the sp. mag. to the chief city mag. one right of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1951CriLJ922
manohar pershad, j.1. this is an appln. for the grant of a certificate to appeal to h.e.h. the nizam under the appeals to h.e.h. the nizam regulation 1368 f. (xxi [21] of 1358 f). no amendment has been made in this petn. it is argued on behalf of the paints, that the dastoor-ul-amil is still in force, & relying on article 372 clause (1) of the constitution, it is contended that the existing law continues & it does not matter whether the judicial committee exists or not. the second contention i9 that the petnrs.' right to appeal which existed on 25 1.1950 cannot be impliedly taken away by the constitution of india being made applicable to the state of hyderabad.2. on behalf of the other side it is contended that having regard to the provisions of article 874 (4) of the constitution & the firman of h. e. h. the nizam dated 23-11-1949, which clearly declares & directs that the provisions of the constitution of india shall, as from the date of its commencements supersede & abrogate all other constitutional provisions inconsistent therewith which are at present in force in this state, the dastoor-ul-amal has become defunct & ineffective it is farther contended on behalf of the other side that in the case of janardana reddy v. the state, or. misc. petn.c no. 71 of 1950 it has been laid down by their lordships of the s.c. that the h.c. of hyderabad, before 26 1-1950, was not a h.c. within the territory of india for the purposes of the constitution, & so no question of grant of any .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1953CriLJ1166
order1. this is an application for transfer of a criminal case comprising charges for murder and other offences, now pending before the special sessions judge at warangal, a number of prosecution witnesses have already been examined and during the course of further cross-examination of one of the prosecution witnesses, the advocate for the accused desired to elicit from the witness the names of persons under whom the witness had hitherto worked as a driver. unfortunately there was disagreement between the judge and the advocate with the result that the advocate withdrew from the case. we wish to point out that this need not have happened. it is not conducive to the dignity of the bench or the bar. on the same day (28.11.1950) the accused filed an application requesting for time to engage another lawyer. the court gave a day's time and posted the case to the next day. it is futile to expect that in a case of murder when already several witnesses have been examined, it is possible for an accused to engage a fresh lawyer and duly instruct him to proceed with the case, within the next 24 hours. the accused could not engage a lawyer and finding that the court was proceeding with the case in hurry which the accused considered unreasonable, filed an application stating that he would apply to the high court for transfer of the case and for stay. the special judge dismissed the application and posted the case to 30.11.1950, on which day he ordered the accused to put in a list of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1951CriLJ1123
siddiqi, j.1. these five appeals were preferred from the judgment of the special tribunal no.iv, hyderabad, convicting syed kasim razvi, the last president of the once powerful organization, majlis ittehadul muslimein & his four other associate volunteers (razakars) of that organization, under sections 128, 124, 850, 177 & 264 (146, 148, 395, 201 & 324, indian code) of the hyderabad penal code. only accused 3 nazir ali was convicted & sentenced to 2 years e. i. under section 264, & accused l kasim razvi & no. 5 haji khan to 2 years each under section 177 & all the accused were sentenced to 2 years on each account under sections 123,124 & 7 years each under section 330, hyderabad penal code. the imprisonment is rigorous & all sentences to run concurrently. oat of the raiding party of 100 to 150 persons, only seven were presented for trial. one died during the trial & the other was acquitted. the conviction of the remaining five has resulted in these appeals.2. the jurisdiction, competency & powers of the special tribunal sentencing them is challenged, & benefit of doubt is claimed with regard to the identification of the accused, & on account of want of reliability of the witnesses, & for alleged discrepancies & exaggeration in their statements, narrating the events. the date of the occurrence is 10-1-1948, & the events cover a period of about two to three hours from about 5 p.m. to sunset. as my learned brother has dealt with the facts of the case in sufficient detail, i .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1952CriLJ873
order1. these are two petitions in revision on behalf of two accused pazl nawaz jung and abdul hamid khan against the order of the special judge refusing bail. the petitioners also invoke the aid of sections 498 and 561-a criminal p.c., and section 24 of the hyderabad high court act. these petitions are disposed of by this single order.2. the charge against the accused briefly stated is as follows: the majlis ittehad-ul-muslimeen was started in, 1928 as a sectarian organisation with the object of achieving the supremacy of the muslims in hyderabad state. it built up a state-wide branch organisation in districts and taluqas and in 1937 organised a volunteer corps called the razakars. syed kasim razvi became its president in december 1946 and continued as president till september 1948. he used the organisation as a means of achieving the objects of himself and the members of the central working committee and the central committee of action. namely the creation of an independent islamic state with a muslim majority, in view of the intended transfer of power to the indians in india. the razakar organisation was strengthened considerably by a campaign of vigorous recruitment. they were given military training with firearms and uniforms. they paraded and marched in flagrant violation of law and regulations - the razakars became an illegal private body - and started a campaign of speeches vituperative and vitriolic in tone, anti-hindu in conduct to foment communal hatred and disturb .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1953CriLJ1875
order1. these are two applications for writs of habeas corpus on behalf of detnus (a) badri narayana and (2) enamula bicham reddy.2. the grounds of detention are the same in both cases. the advocate for the detenus arguesthat in the order of detention the period of detention has not been mentioned and that therefore the detention itself is illegal. in support he relies on a ruling of the allahabad high court reported in - m.m. bashir v. state aur 1951 all. 357 (a). but this single bench ruling has been dissented from in a division bench ruling of the same high court, which is reported in - ram adhar misra v state air 1951 all. 18(b). the single bench judgment was delivered on 20-6-1950 whereas the division bench judgment was delivered on 14-9-1950. the division bench after considering the law on the subject has come to a conclusion contrary to that arrived at in the single bench and has categorically held that the non-mention of the period of detention does not make the detention illegal or ultra vires. we agree. this contention fails. it is further urged that the grounds of detention are vague. among the grounds stated it is also alleged that when the s.a.p. party of cherumadram raided the village on 24-1-1951 these detenus hid three underground hostiles in the housed of one bhusayya and then they followed the police as informants. it is also learnt that the detenus are in possession of some weapons, without any licence evidently to help the hostiles.3. we consider these .....
Tag this Judgment!