Court : Andhra Pradesh
Common Order: The petitioners 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 in these batch of criminal petitions are accused of offences punishable under Sections 27(b)(ii) 27(c), 27(d) and 28-B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940(in short, the Act) for violation of Sections 18(c), 18(a)(i)/17(B)(d), 17(b) of the Act and Section 26-A read with S.No.56 of notification No.GSR 578(E) dated 23.07.1983. A-1 is Fizikem Laboratories Private Limited, Tadigadapa and A-2 is its Managing Director. Subject matter of these criminal prosecutions is manufacture and sale of capsules of Ozomen, Ozomen Forte and Rapid Forte by the accused through various dealers in the State. After obtaining samples of the said drugs from the retail dealers when they kept the same for sale, in accordance with the procedure prescribed, one of the samples in each case was sent to Government analyst for analysis. In all these cases, Government analyst sent analytical report. Accordingly the respective drugs inspectors filed complaints before the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6760of 2012 and Batch 03-10-2012 M/s.Fizikem Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. And another The Drugs Inspector and another Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu for Mr.Ambadipudi Satyanarayana Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor : : Cases referred:1. 1995(2) CRIMES 86 2. 1975 AIR (SC) 1002 = (1975)3 Supreme Court Cases 706 CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6760, 6817, 6818, 6819, 6820, 6821, 6822, 6823, 6824, 6825, 6826, 6827, 6828, 6829, 6830, 6861, 6862, 6863, 6864 & 6865 of 2012 COMMON ORDER : The petitioners 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 in these batch of criminal petitions are accused of offences punishable under Sections 27(b)(ii) 27(c), 27(d) and 28- B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940(in short, the Act) for violation of Sections 18(c), 18(a)(i)/17(B)(d), 17(b) of the Act and Section 26-A read with S.No.56 of notification not GSR 578(E) dated 23.07.1983. A-1 is Fizikem Laboratories Private Limited, Tadigadapa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1884
Kondaiah, J.1. This Criminal Revision case gives rise to a short Question of law. viz., whether the statement or averment made by a Muslim husband in a counter before a Magistrate in an application by the wife for maintenance under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to the effect that he had already divorced his wife, would amount to a valid divorce at least with effect from the date when the statement or averment was made.2. In order to appreciate the scope of the question, it is necessary to briefly state the material facts which gave rise to the question : The 1st respondent herein had married the petitioner about 20 years back. They have a son and a daughter. The petitioner herein ill-treated and tortured the 1st. respondent-wife after marrying a third wife. Therefore, she accompanied by her children left her hushand's house on 18-9-1971 and resided with one Ghulam Hussain who is no other than her son through her first husband. Registered notice claiming maintenance for he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1997(3)ALD356; 1997(2)ALD(Cri)138; 1997(1)ALT(Cri)806; 1997CriLJ4198
P.S. Mishra, C.J. 1. Since this doesn't appear to be an appropriate case to enter into the question, whether a notice issued by the Inspector of Police, when questioned under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and ordered by the Court, shall give rise to appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Court, we leave the question open, but observe that we are entertaining the appeal only because we have found that the notice is clearly outside of any proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and/or any other law relatable to a criminal proceeding. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent limits the Court's power of appeal to civil proceedings only. A notice which has the effect of affecting right under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and which is outside of the procedure established by law since affects a civil right, may, when questioned under Art. 226 of the Constitution, be termed as of civil nature. We do not, however, make any final pronouncement on it. 2. The petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(1)ALD(Cri)749; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)334; III(2003)BC382; [2005]124CompCas629(AP); 2004CriLJ1291; [2004]50SCL341(AP)
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. In this batch of Revisions, a common question of law arises. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.2. The petitioner is Agricultural Market Committee, Adoni, Kurnool District. It is empowered to levy market fee from the traders on purchases and sales of the agriculture produce within the notified area. The 1st respondent in each of the cases is a trader (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondents'). The respondents made the payment of market fee for particular periods through cheques. On presentation, the cheques were dishonoured with endorsements by the Banker that the amount covered by the cheques 'exceeds arrangements'.3. Notices as required under the relevant provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act,. 1881 (for short 'the NI Act') were issued. The respondents, in turn, issued replies requesting time for making arrangements. The petitioner did not take any further steps for quite some time. Ultimately, when the respondents did not keep u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1985CriLJ1009
ORDERKodandaramayya, J.1. In this writ petition the power of the State Government to suspend the sentence and release prisoners on parole when their appeal against the conviction is pending in this Court is questioned; rather an extraordinary situation releasing prisoners in total disregard of statutory rules is noticed in this case. 2. The petitioner states that he belongs to Yarlagadda village and respondents 3 to 8 and fourteen others were charged for murder and the Sessions Judge Machilipatnam convicted respondents 3 to 8 under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and for other charges and sentenced to life imprisonment and the said accused who were convicted preferred an appeal Crl. A.241/83 on the file of this Court and the State Government preferred an appeal against the other accused who are acquitted. The request of the accused to release them on bail pending the appeal was rejected on 25-3-83 by this Court. However only one accused i.e., 7th respondent herein was released...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 619 o07. 12-2012. D. Sudhakar Panapu Sreenivasulu @ Evone Water Sreenivasulu and others. For the petitioner: Mr. A. Tulsi Raj Gokul For the Respondents:1. The Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.6 2)Sri M. Rama Rao for respondent Nos.1,3,4 an3. Mrs. D. Sangeetha Reddy, for respondent No.2. : ?CITATIONS:2001. Laws (Kerala) 844 Judgment: (Per Sri. N.V. Ramana, J.) The appellant, who claims to be the brother of the deceased has filed this criminal appeal against the judgment dated 30.11.2011, passed in S.C. No. 34 of 2009, acquitting the respondents-accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the offence punishable under Section 148 I.P.C. and respondents-accused Nos. 3 to 5 for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is the de facto complainant and he being the brother of the deceased and P.W.1 in the case, is a victim, and ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(5)ALD380; 2007(5)ALT236; [2007]139CompCas545(AP); [2007]79SCL468(AP)
S. Ananda Reddy, J.1. This Contempt petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 10 - 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging that the respondents committed civil and criminal contempt by interfering in the course of administration of justice, by violating and disobeying the orders of the Company Law Board, Southern Region Bench at Chennai in C.P.35 of 2000, dated 29.02.2000 and order in C.A. 344/634-A/SRB/2001, dated 21.08.2001 and also for breach of affidavits filed before the Company Law Board and this Court in Company Appeal No. 7 of 2001, and to pass such other order or orders as this Court deem it fit and proper.2. It is stated that 3rd respondent is a company, while the 1st respondent is the promoter director of the 3rd respondent company and the 2nd respondent is the President of the 3rd respondent company. It is stated that the 1st respondent and other directors, on behalf of the 3rd respondent company, issued a public advertisement, inviting deposits, proposing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1997(1)ALD(Cri)615; 1997(1)ALT(Cri)864; II(1997)DMC188
B.S.A. Swamy, J.1. The question that arises for consideration of this Court in this criminal revision is whether the Sessions Court in exercise of its revisional powers under Sections 397, Cr. P.C. can remand the case for retrial which has arisen under Section 125, Cr. P.C.2. The facts in this case are not in dispute. The respondent initiated proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P.C. alleging that she is the wife of the petitioner and one Laxmi Narasamma has born to her during the wedlock with the petitioner and as the petitioner neglected to maintain her even though having sufficient means to maintain, she is entitled to receive maintenance from the petitioner. The claim of the respondent was contested by the petitioner by contending that he never married the respondent and the daughter Laxmi Narasamma, who was alleged to have been born to the respondent during the wedlock, is not his child.3. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the ground that the respondent failed to produce any...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
(Sri K. Satyanand,Honble Member) These two appeals arise out of the same subject matter that came to be adjudicated in C.D.No.72/2003 on the file of District Forum, Srikakulam. The facts that led to filing these two appeals are briefly as follows: The complainant claiming to have been motivated by opposite parties 1 and 2 placed an order with opposite party No.2 for the purchase of Offset Master Mini Printing machine of 45 x 20 size centralized lubrication for an amount of Rs.2,85,000/-. The said deal was confirmed by a document signed mutually by the complainant on one hand and the representative of the manufacturer, opposite party no.2 on the other as per Ex.A9. It is pertinent to point out that opposite party no.1(appellant) is not a party to the said confirmation. The complainant claimed to have paid a total amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to opposite party no.2 for the supply of the machinery for which he placed order with opposite party no.2. A further amount was outstanding due to oppos...
Tag this Judgment!