Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1966AP137; 1966CriLJ512
ORDERAnantanarayana Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner gave a complaint to the Police. After investigation, the Police filed a charge-sheet. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur tried the accused. Ultimately, he convicted the accused and sentenced him. At the trial, the petitioner complainant deposed as P.W. 1. The accused filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Guntur and were completely acquitted by him. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition in this court praying for revision of the lower appellate Court's judgment of acquittal. Along with the revision petition, he filed a certified copy of the judgment of the lower appellate court but he did not file a certified copy of the judgment of the trial court. When the office required him to file a certified copy duly stamped, he came forward with a contention that he was not bound to furnish a certified copy. Therefore, the office put up the matter before me for hearing.2. The petitioner produced a copy of the trial court's...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1996(1)ALD414; 1995(3)ALT740; 1996CriLJ1086
A. Gopal Rao, J. 1. This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, viz., The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Hyderabad and the Station House Officer, Rein Bazar Police Station, Mir Chowk Sub-Division, South Zone, Hyderabad, in seizing the passport of the petitioner, bearing No. 239348 issued by the Government of Qatar, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to order release of the passport in favour of the petitioner. 2. This Writ Petition in the first instance came up for admission before a learned single Judge who by Order dated 25-9-1995 referred the same for consideration and disposal by a Division Bench as in the view of the learned Judge the case involvees important questions of law for consideration and decision. Therefore, this Writ Petition is posted befo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.1087 of 2014 04-02-2014 Ms.Kavadi Gouthami....Petitioner The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Home, Hyderabad, rep. by the Principal Secretary & others....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sr.M.S.Prasad, Senior Counsel for Sr.V. Lakshman Rao Counsel for the Respondent 1 to 4 : GP for Home HEAD NOTE: ?.Cases referred THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.1087 of 2014 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to forthwith complete the investigation including arrest of the accused in Crime No.393 of 2013 registered by the Police Station at Langer House, Hyderabad and take action against the accused in accordance with law, after declaring the inaction and abdication as illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The facts relevant for our inquiry, at present, are that the petitioner was the de facto-complainant in Crime No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959AP129; 1959CriLJ290
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. These petitions are filed against the orders of different First Class Magistrates directing delivery of the properties to the trustees appointed by the Deputy Commissioner of the Board of Religious and Charitable Endowments under Section 87 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter to be called as the Act). A preliminary objection is taken to the maintainability of these petitions on the ground that the First Class Magistrate exercises only executive functions under Section 87 and does not act in a judicial capacity and that, at any rate, it was not as a Court that he exercises jurisdiction but as a persona designata. These arguments are based on a judgment of Justice Bhimasankaram in Anjayya v. Venkateswara Das, 1958-1 Andh WR 283. 2. To appreciate the points involved in these revision cases, it is useful to set out the relevant sections of the Act and of the Criminal Procedure Cede (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code). Section 8...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.74 OF 201.25.03.2013 Vadde Veeresh and another The State of A.P. Counsel for the petitioners: Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy Counsel for respondents 3, 5 to 7, 9 to 11,13 to 16, 18, 19, 37, 39 and 41: Sri V.L.Surendra, Counsel for the respondents 8, 20, 22, 26, 29, 35, 36, 38, 43 & 44: Sri O.Kailasnath Reddy Counsel for the respondents 12, 17, 2427. 28, 30 to 34, 40 and 42: Sri H.Prahalad Reddy, Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor representing the State HEAD NOTE: ?Cases referred:1. 2002)5 SCC 73.ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Accused Nos.23 and 41 in Sessions Case No.63 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni to direct the learned Additional Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial without conducting de nova trial and dispose of the case.2. I have heard Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(2)ALD(Cri)537; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)510; II(1999)DMC329
Krishna Saran Shrivastav, J.1. Our learned Sister Ms. S.V. Maruthi, J., has referred this case for reconsideration by a Larger Bench, the law laid down in the case of Golla Ramana Rao v. Golla Chandramma & one Anr., Criminal Revision Case No. 390/1977, decided on 17.2.1978 that, the application of the parents for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be decided by the Magistrate within whose jurisdiction their children reside.2. The facts giving rise to this revision, in brief, are that the petitioners, who are the parents of the 1st respondent, had filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the 1st respondent, who was working in TISCO at Tatanagar at the relevant time, in M.C. No. 2/1990 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ichapuram. The Magistrate allowed the application on merits on 27.1.1994 granting maintenance to them3. The respondents carried the matter to the High Court i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(2)ALD(Cri)905; I(2004)DMC456
Bilal Nazki, J1. This is the reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 12.2.2002 in respect of order dated 19.7.2001 passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pakala in Crl. M.P. No. 798 of 2001 in M.C. No. 5 of 2000.2. The brief facts that are necessary for answering the present Reference are that the first respondent herein filed a petition seeking to set aside the order dated 4.10.2000 whereunder the maintenance petition filed by her in M.C. No. 5 of 2000 was dismissed for default. She filed the said maintenance petition against her husband. When the case came up for hearing on 4.10.2000 for her non-appearance, the Court dismissed the maintenance petition for default. She filed a petition seeking restoration of the maintenance petition on the ground of ill-health. Her husband contended that no medical certificate in support of the claim of ill-health was filed and the default order could not be set aside. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(1)ALD(Cri)580; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)566; III(2003)BC345
ORDERK.C. Bhanu, J.1. The above petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in the criminal cases covered by the petitions pending on the file of the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.2. As a common question of law is involved in all the petitions and as all the petitions are filed by the same accused, they are being disposed of by a common order.3. The de facto complainant filed several complaints before the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the Managing Directors, Directors and Financial Controller, including the petitioner, who is one of the Directors of M/s. Renewable Energy Systems Ltd., (for short, 'RESL') under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity, alleging that it leased out equipment under a lease agreement, dated 10.3.1995 to the accused at quarterly rent of Rs. 16,35,960/-, that in pursuance of the agreement, RESL ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(2)ALD(Cri)263; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)256
ORDER1. The petitioners who are accused in S.T.C. No. 62 of 1998 invoke the inherent powers of this Court to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 62 of 1998 on the file of Spl. Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad.2. The facts that arise for consideration can be succinctly stated as follows :The 1st petitioner is a Government company. Petitioners 2 and 3 are directors in the office of the said company at the time of filing of complaint. Under Section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') as amended by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1977 there is a statutory obligation on the part of the company and its directors to file the approved balance sheet and profit and loss account within 30 days before the Registrar of Companies after laying them before the annual general meeting. The audited balance sheet and profit and loss account of the company as on 30-6-1989 have to be laid before the annual general meeting to be held on 31 -12-1989 as required under Section 210 of the Act. It is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1997(5)ALD735; 1997(2)ALD(Cri)623; 1998CriLJ439
P.S. Mishra, C.J. 1. Can an application for bail in anticipation of arrest as contemplated under S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 be moved before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad instead of Court of the Special Judge for Economic Offences 2. This Court in Superintendent Customs and Central Excise, Range II, Nellore Division, Nellore v. Elukala Krishnamachari, 1987 (32) ELT 324 (AP) has taken the view that only the Court of the Special Judge for Economic Offences is competent to entertain any application under S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a matter which is exclusively triable by the Special Judge for Economic Offences. Our learned brother Krishna Saran Shrivastav, J. however, has after taking notice of the Government notification in ROC. No. 1354/SO/82 dated 21-9-1982, whereby in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of S. 12 of the Code (Act II of 1974) the High Court has appointed the Additional District and Sessions Ju...
Tag this Judgment!