Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(2)ALD(Cri)562; 2000(5)ALT667
ORDER1. The petitioners herein have filed the present writ petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents herein to produce the petitioners herein before this Court and they may be directed to release the petitioners forthwith after declaring that the detention of the petitioners is illegal and void.2. The writ affidavit filed by the 1st petitioner herein shows that he is a life convict, who was tried by the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam in Sessions Case No.121 of 1988 for the offences punishable under sections 148, 452 and 302 read with section 149 IPC along with 13 other accused. Some of them were convicted and some of them were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge in the said case. In all 14 prisoners were accused in the Sessions Case against whom the order of sentence of life imprisonm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1995(3)ALD316; 1996CriLJ466
P.S. Mishra, C.J.1. This appeal against the order in the original proceeding before this Court in W.P. No. 14454 of 1993 is being disposed of at the stage of admission, but not before we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh and before getting from the State Government information as to the latest position of the investigation and materials collected by the police and after satisfying ourselves that a positive order can be made by us for filing of the report by the Investigating Officer in the capacity of the officer-in-charge of Puttaparthi Police Station under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. The facts of the case are : The petitioner-appellant herein, it appears, has the satisfaction of the honorific of being the Convenor of the Indian Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal which is, as he has claimed, a co-operating member of CSICDP (Only abbreviation is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1982CriLJ2020
Seetharama Reddy, J.1. This petition is to release Gutha Narayanappa C. No. 1422 in the Central Prison, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad, by issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ of direction. 2. The petitioner's case is that the convict Gutha Narayanappa was convicted in S.C. No. 28/71 under S. 302, I.P.C. and S. 3 of the Explosive Substance Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to life imprisonment for each of the offences, though to run concurrently. Appeal therefrom was, however, dismissed. Prior to the sentence he was under remand for a period of 11 months and 22 days. While undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment, the convict earned remission amounting to three years. The convict has already spent about 10 years in prison. While so, the Government of Andhra Pradesh in commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh and in exercise of its powers under section 432, Cr.P.C. issued G.O. Ms. No. 557 dated 30-10...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
1. This writ petition is filed praying to grant the following relief; ..to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in commencing and proceeding with the road cutting and laying of pipeline work in Road No.79 and 82 of Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad from 6-5-5015 onwards and the Order of the 5th Respondent vide Lr.No.18/DB/GM(E)/PD- IV/KDWSP/PH-III/Pkg-IX/2015-16/3C dated 23-4-2015 and License No.LandO/M7/52/2015 dated 5.1.2015 granted by the 3rd Respondent to the 9th Respondent permitting blasting and road cutting in the thickly populated residential area of Road Nos.79 and 82, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad without considering and disposing of the objections/representations of the Petitioners dated 17.2.2015 and 7.5.2015, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently, direct the respondents to lay the pipeline from the vast open and uninhabit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(5)ALD72; 2000(4)ALT393; 2001CriLJ2972
ORDERRamesh Madhav Bapat, J.1. In all the above writ petitions a common question of law is involved and therefore they are disposed of by a common order.WP No.3076 of 2000:The convict is the father of the petitioner herein. He was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and also under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act by the Sessions Judge, Ananthapur in Sessions Case No.105 of 1984 on 22-7-1985 and he is undergoing the sentence. Criminal Appeal No.672 of 1985 filed by the convict was dismissed. It is pleaded by him that he has undergone the sentence of 9 years 7 months and 20 daysand remand period of two months 26 days. Thus, the total sentence undergone by the convict is 13 years 2 months and 16 days including special remission given by the Government from time to time as on 26-1-2000. WP No. 5760 of 2000:The convict is the brother of the petitioner herein. He was tried by the Sessions Judge, Cuddapah in Sessions Case No. 236...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(2)ALD228; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)565; 1999(2)ALT325; 1999(2)ALT(Cri)9; 1999CriLJ3566
1. One M. Balakrishna Reddy who was the husband of the petitioner in Crl. RC No.630 of 1998. M. Venkata Lakshmi and M. Radhakrishna Reddy were facing prosecution in Crime No.33 of 1995 under Section 498-A and 406 of 1PC when a Government order being G.O. Rt. No.2087 was issued by the Home Department on 7th August, 1997. Acting on this order the Public Prosecutor moved an application before the trial Court for withdrawal from the prosecution and the trial Court passed an order on 19-9-1997 permitting withdrawal of prosecution. The order of trial Court has been challenged in Crl. RC No.630 of 1998. After the Government order dated 7-8-1997 had been acted upon and the trial Court had permitted withdrawal of the prosecution, the Government passed another order being G.O. Rt. No.2717 dated 21st October, 1997 withdrawing the earlier Government Order. This Government Order has been challenged in WP No.28309 of 1997 by the persons who are respondents in the revision petition.2. Counters have b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1997AP20; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)628; 1996(3)ALT901
ORDER1. The petitioner applied for a licence, to possess and sell explosives by establishing a Magazine for the storage of explosives, to the third respondent who is the competent authority for grant of such licence. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the above Writ Petition that the petitioner had purchased land in Sy. Nos. 756 to 766 of Ankireddipally village, Keesara Mandal, Rangareddy District. The petitioner hadnever carried on the business in explosive earlier and there has been no complaint against the petitioner under the Explosives Act, 1984 or under the Explosives Substances Act, 1988. However, the petitioner's brother Sri A. Indrasena Reddy has been carrying on business in explosives under the name and style of M/s. Vijaya Associates which was a proprietory concern and that the petitioner has nothing to do with the aforesaid business. It appears that a case is pending against the petitioner's brother under the Explosives Act and on that ground the Superintend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1962CriLJ318
Basi Reddy, J.1. On the evening of the 28th April, 1959 at about 7 P.M. whilst one Narayans Reddy (P.W. 1) was seated on the 'plal1 outside his house in Jutur village, a bomb was hurled at him and as a result of the explosion, although he escaped death, he was seriously wounded in the leg and disabled for life. In connection with' this incident, the two, appellants (who will be referred to as A-l and A-2 respectively) were tried, convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge or Anantapur as under: A-l was convicted Under Section 307 J.P.C. and Under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years under each count. A-2 was convicted Under Section 307 read with Section 109 IPC and Under Section 3 read with Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years under each count. The sentences of both the appellants were ordered to run concurrently.(Here His Lordship narrated the fact...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(1)ALD(Cri)161; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)138; 2000CriLJ5029
Motilal B. Naik, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the accused 1 to 5 and 7 to 10 in Sessions case No. 53 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool.2. The appellants-accused 1 to 5 and 7 to 10 along with A. 6 were originally tried for the following offences 1. A.1 to A.10 under Section 148, IPC.2. A. 1 under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.3. A.1 to A. 10 under Section 302, IPC or alternatively under Sections 302 r/w 149, IPC.However, during the pendency of the trial A. 6 died and hence the case against him stood abated.3. A.1 was found guilty Under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. He was also found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year under Section 3 of the Act but no sep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1996(2)ALD(Cri)324; 1996(3)ALT836
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, for short 'the Act', was allowed to be a history by efflux of eight years time fixed under Sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Act, but the question whether the prosecution launched against the two petitioners in these two writ petitions under the provisions of the Act is valid or not is still engaging the attention of the Court.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 7594 of 1996 is Accused No.8 and the petitioner in W.P. No. 7700of 1996 is Accused No. 2 in Sessions Case No. 595 of 1994 (Crime No. 151/93) on the file of the Designated Court-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The petitioner in W.P. No. 7594 of 1996 has prayed for Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate order or direction in the nature of a writ calling for the records in S.C. No. 595/94 on the file of the Designated Court-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad declaring that the action of the respondent in invoking the provi...
Tag this Judgment!