Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-01-1991
Reported in : 1992(1)ALT520; I(1992)DMC542
Bhaskar Rao, J.This writ petition is filed questioning the notice dated 7-8-91 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Women Protection Cell, CID Hyderabad, the respondent directing the petitioners to appear before her on 9-8-91.1. The facts of the case are that the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos. 2, 3 and 6 in Crime No. 131 of 1990 of Police Station Amberpet. The above crime was registered against the petitioners and seven others under Sections 420, 498A and 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Originally a private complaint was field by Mrs. Farhana Parveen who is the wife of the 1st accused against the petitioners and 7 others before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court Hyderabad. The Magistrate before taking cognisance of the offences referred the case to the Station House Officer Amberpet Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. for investigation. The Police, Amperpet registered the crime ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-30-1991
Reported in : 1993(1)ALT589
M.N. Rao, J.1. Writ Appeal Nos. 233 and 239 of 1991 are directed against interlocutory orders passed by a learned Single Judge in WVMP Nos. 213 and 229 of 1991 in WPMP Nos. 18648 and 18644 of 1990 in Writ Petition Nos. 14532 and 14530 of 1990 vacating the interim directions granted earlier by another learned single Judge by which the Regional Transport Authorities were directed to release the vehicles seized by them for contravention of the provisions of Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act provided in respect of each of the seized vehicles a sum of rupees one thousand was deposited. At the request of the learned counsel for both sides the main writ petitions themselves are taken up for hearing along with the connected writ petitions. In writ petitions - Writ Petition Nos. 14530 and 14811 of 1990 and 4045 and 4196 of 1991 - the petitioners are challenging the constitutionality of sub-section (1) of Section 200 and sub-section (1) of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act; in other writ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-06-1991
Reported in : AIR1992AP109; 1991(2)ALT48
ORDERJagannadha Rao, J.1. The question that arises in the batch of writ Appeals is whether schemes pending under S. 68E of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for modification of existing schemes lapse and are not saved by S. 217 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In W.A. Nos. 50 and 98 of 1991 the draft schemes were initiated by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called the A. P. S. R. T. C.) before 1-7-1989, the date ofcommencement of the new Act, objections were called for and filed but they were heard and approved after 1-7-1989 by the Gpvern-ment under S. 100 of the new Act after 1-7-1989. In W.A. Nos. 54 and 65 of 1991, the draft schems were initiated by the A.P.S.R.T.C. before 1-7-1989, objections were called and filed and a date of hearing of the matters before the concerned Minister was given. It was at that stage that the writ petitions out of which these appeals arise, were filed, stay of all further proceedings obtained and later the writ petitions were allowed b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-18-1991
Reported in : II(1992)DMC95
Jagannadha Raju, J.1. This revision is filed by the three accusedwho were convicted originally by the trial Court viz., the II Additional AssistantSessions Judge, Vijayawada in SC No. 85 of 1986. They were convicted foroffence Under Section 306 IPC-abetment of suicide and Under Section 498AIPC-cruelty caused to a women by husband or relatives of husband. Theywere sentenced to suffer RI for a period of three years under each count andthey were also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- each under each count and indefault in payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days. InCrl. Appeal No. 93/88 which was disposed of by the III Additional SessionsJudge, Vijayawada on 10-8-1990, the convictions for offences Under Sections306 and 498-A IPC were set aside and instead the accused were convictedfor an offence Under Section 304B IPC, an offence popularly known as 'dowrydeath'.2. In this revision, Sri Ella Reddy contends that the judgment of theappellate Court is vitiated because the ...
Tag this Judgment!