Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1951CriLJ1402
order1. the three questions to be adjudicated in this full bench case are: (i) whether the statement relating to the past conduct of the detenu in the grounds of his detention is justice-able; (ii) whether the statements furnished in the grounds are vague; & (iii) whether the delay in communicating the grounds entitles the detenu to be released.2. these have arisen in a petition filed by the mother of the detenu, under article 226, constitution of india, as well as section 529), hyderabad cri, p.c. she prays for release alleging that the son is a resident of village ravirala, mahboobabad taluka, warangal district & was arrested on 16-7-1949 at mahboobabad; since his arrest; she is unaware of the crime or reasons for which he hat been arrested & the officials concerned have, notwithstanding several applications, failed to inform her; so far as she is aware, the son has also not been given any order or the reasons for his detention. in para. 8 of the application, it is claimed that the son is an agriculturist, a primary member of the state congress, possesses several acres of cultivable immovable property, pays rs. 200 as land revenue is a law abiding citizen, & has no connection with the communist party, then the detention is alleged to be without any reason, 'mala tide' & causing monetary loss & starvation to the family.3. after notice & several adjournments, the govt. advocate, on 6-12-1950, filed his reply, in which it is stated that the detemn is the brother-in-law of one .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1951CriLJ1522
order1. this is a revision petition against the order of the chief city magistrate holding that the case under the arms act could be tried & that 8 403 sub-b (4), indian cr p.c., corresponding to section 204, hyderabad cr. p. 0. was no bar. the relevant facts are that the accused was prosecuted for an attempt to commit suicide with a revolver. that case was decided & the accused convicted. the present prosecution is under the-arms act for unlawful possession of the said revolver. mr. chobe, the learned advocate for the accused contends that if the attempt to commit suicide was with the same revolver about which the present offence has been launched it will be barred under section 403, indian cr. p.c. cited above. we do not agree with this contention. the test to determine whether the said section would be a bar or not is to see whether the subsequent offence is the same as the previous offence. it is clear that the possession of the revolver without a licence is a distinct offence in itself under the arms act- it hag nothing to do with the attempt to commit suicide which is a separate offence under the penal code. in emperor v. munnoo a. i. b. (20) 198a oudh 470, it was held that conviction in respect of possession of stolen revolver under sections 411 & 414, penal code, is no bar to conviction under section 19(f), arms..this revision petition therefore fails & is dismissed.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1952CriLJ215
order1. these are three revisions which have been filed by the complainant against the order of the magistrate refusing to frame a charge and discharging the accused. two revisions have been filed in the cases against mawle of cheating and criminal breach, of trust and of forgery and another revision has been filed in the case against ramkishan. the revision petitioner in all these cases is one kachrulal and all the offences are said to have been committed in connection with a motor lorry which belonged to the complainant kachrulal. the complainant alleged that his motor lorry was sent to hyderabad from lathur for renewal of the licence and was pledged with the accused, mawle, by his servants, ramkishen and khajamean dishonestly. he further stated that he protested against this by sending his men. the complainant stated that very soon the accused mawle with whom the motor lorry was pledged got a document from his servants purporting to be executed by the complainant as having sold the lorry to him. the complaint further stated that mawle also filed an application purporting to be on behalf of the complainant, to the commissioner of police, requesting that the lorry be registered in mawle's name. the case of the complainant was that both the documents relating to the sale of the lorry and the application to the commissioner of police do not contain his signature and they are both forged.2. some dates would be relevant to understand the course of events in this case. it is .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1951CriLJ1527
order1. this is an application by sitaramam-ma for the writ of habeas corpus to secure release of four detenus. the case was referred to the pull bench in view of certain important legal questions involved in the decision.2 the application alleges that chinna rammayya, gopayya, narsayya and sitayya were arrested on march 19, 1950 and sent to central jail, waiangal on march 24, 1950; wherefrom they have been transferred to jalna jail about nine months back; the applicant does not know the offence or the material on which they have been arrested, nor so far as she is aware, the detenus have been informed about the orders or the grounds of their detention; they are agriculturist, loyal subject of the government have 150 acres of dry and 50 acres of wet cultivation, as well as pay rs. 800/- as government revenue; the police of mahboobabad illegally without any reasons have arrested them who are her brothers and nephew, and the arrest, therefore, is illegal, 'ultra vires' and 'mala fide'.3. notice of the application was issued to the government advocate and in his reply of december 6, 1950, it is said that all the four detenus are closely related to one theegla satyanarayana, who is an underground dangerous hostile leader and who has committed a number of murders; the detenus were supplying provisions to the 'dalam' of theegla satyanarayana and were passing on information to the hostiles about the movements of the police and military; they have been detained under preventive .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1952CriLJ702
order1. this is a revision application by a person convicted under sections 386 and 368, h.p.c. to a term of six months' rigorous imprisonment, but the sentence was kept in abeyance under the provisions of section 530, h. criminal p.c. corresponding to section 562 of the indian criminal procedure code on the accused furnishing security to the extent of rs. 5,000/- for good behaviour for a period of two years, against the order of conviction the accused filed an appeal before the district magistrate. the district magistrate held that the appeal was incompetent as the accused was not really undergoing imprisonment by reason of the application of section 530, h. cr.p.c. against that order and also against the order of the munsif-magistrate finding the accused guilty of the offence, the accused has come in revision before us, that though section 530, h. cr.p.c, was applied still the accused is a person convicted of the offence, he having been found guilty, and that consequently he is entitled to file the appeal. we agree. undergoing sentence is not the criterion to determine whether an appeal lies or not. the real criterion is whether there is conviction and the forum for appeal depends on the term of sentence. in this case, the sentence being six months' rigorous imprisonment, an appeal lay properly to the court of the district magistrate. in view of the re-organization of the courts, the appeal will now be heard by the sessions judge at nizamabad. the file will now be sent to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1953CriLJ1141
srinivasachari, j.1. this is an appeal on behalf of the state against the judgment of the sessions judge., gulbarga, acquitting six accused who were charged under sections 124 and 243, hyderabad penal code. the story of the prosecution is that on 8th amardad 1356 f., at about 8 a.m. the six accused went to the land known as saharai indola situated in nilanga taluq, bidar district and finding the deceased, basappa, sowing seeds and cultivating the land which,, according to the accused belonged to them, inflicted severe injuries on basappa and in consequence of which basappa died and sharnappa received severe injuries. the accused were charged with the murder of basappa and for rioting. the accused denied the committing of the crime. on behalf of the prosecution eleven witnesses were examined, of whom p.ws. 7, 8 and 9 were examined as eye-witnesses. it was stated by the prosecution that the motive for the crime was a dispute between the party of the accused and the party of the deceased with regard to the possession of the land. the prosecution examined other witnesses also with regard to the dispute about the land and about the fight between the two parties. on the evidence before the sessions judge, the sessions judge came to the conclusion that the accused were guilty of the offence of murder of basappa, but he held that this act of the accused was in exercise of their right of private defence. in the result the sessions judge acquitted the accused. it is against this .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1952CriLJ340
1. this is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari against; the commissioner of the city police, hyderabad, complaining that; under his orders, the petitioner was dispossessed of the land in dispute which is adjacent to the putlibavidi police station, the police authorities having held that the same is part of the police station premises.2. mr. b. narayana rao, learned advocate for the petitioner contends that the title to the said property is in favour of his client and that even otherwise it was not within the competence of the police authorities to take the law into their own hands to dispossess the petitioner against his will making a departmental enquiry and deciding the issue in their own favour. he further urges that if the police have any el aim to the property, the matter should have been litigated in ordinary civil courts as between party to party instead of recourse to such forcible possession. he contends that such action on the part of the police amounts to infringement of the rights of property guaranteed by the constitution.3. we agree, the constitution upholds the rule of law and guarantees fundamental rights. article 31(1) of the constitution protects the property rights of persons and lays down that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. the duty to abide by the constitution and to maintain the rule of law is cast upon all the three branches of the state i.e., the legislature, executive and the judiciary, see .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1952CriLJ352
order1. this is a petition for leave to appeal to the supreme court under section 134(c) of the constitution of india.2. the facts leading to this petition are that one baquer hussain was charged and convicted under sections 134, 217, 263, 330/71 and 389/ 71, of the hyderabad penal code. the accused appealed to the high court and the high court acquitted him of all the charges. on behalf of the government this petition is filed for leave to appeal to supreme court. advocate-general argues that this is a fit case in which leave should be granted. in separate but concurrent judgments of the division bench it has been held that the accused cannot be convicted for abetment as there was no charge framed against the accused. the advocate-general contends that this is not according to law. there are several authorities in which it has been held that though the substantive offence is not proved yet if all the ingredients disclosed in the offence of abetment were substantiated the accused can be convicted of abetment even though there was no charge. in support of this argument he has relied upon begu v. emperor 88 ind cas 3 (pc); jananada charan v. emperor air (16) 1929 cal 807; khuman v. emperor air (18) 1931 oudh 274, kadira v. emperor air (15) 1928 cal 466; ma thaw v. emperor 26 ind cas 149 (lb); in re, padmanabha payi 11 cri l jour 49 (mad); hira sah v. emperor air (34) 1947 pat 350; provincial govt. v. saidu air (34) 1947 nag 113; debi prosad v. emperor air (19) 1932 cal 455. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1952CriLJ572
..... to this: the deceased and his party were the aggressors and went to dhanaji's house and belaboured him; and that though kondaji received injuries in the fight, the real cause of his death was an accident which occurred later at a different place. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1953CriLJ785
srinivasachari, j.1. criminal appeal from the judgment and order of the court of the special tribunal iv, trimulgherry, dated 11.9.1950 in cr. case no. 1 of 1358 fasli on the file of that court, and on a refrence made by the hon'ble the chief justice dated 13.4.1951, there being a difference of opinion between the hon'ble judges constituting the devision bench.this case has assumed much more importance than the general class of cases of murder which we come across every-day because of the political background behind it and because there was implicated in it the most powerful figure in hyderabad during the period prior to the police action.2. the motive alleged for the crime by the prosecution is that one shoebullah khan who was editing a daily newspaper called 'imroze' was repeatedly publishing articles against the policy of syed mohamad khasim razvi, the leader and president of the itehad-ul-muslim, which was the most powerful organization exercising enormous control over the administrative machinery in the hyderabad state. its ultimate aim was to keep the hyderabad state as an independent unit and not allow it to accede to the indian union. shoebullah was opposed to this policy and it is stated that he gave vent to his views in his daily newspaper 'imroze'. it is stated that khasim razvi having got annoyed at the repeated attacks by shoebullah khan against him and his policy decided that shoebullah khan should be got out of his way. with a view to achieve this object he .....
Tag this Judgment!