Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959AP497
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the order passed by the Government dated 26-6-1958 in G. O. Ms. No. 1584 dismissing him from service on a charge of corruption and irregularities in court work. For a proper appreciation o the contentions raised the facts relating to suspension and dismissal of the petitioner and the writ petition and appeal to' the Supreme Court filed by him prior to this petition may be enumerated.2. The petitioner was recruited to the Madras Judicial Service as a District Munsif in 1935 and in 1949 he was promoted to the office of the Subordinate Judge and pasted at Masulipatam on 19-6-1950. The charge of bribery levelled against him was with respect to two connected suits tried by him, O. S. No. 95 of 1946 and O. S. No. 24 of 1949. On 27-7-1950, the trial having concluded, arguments were heard and judgment was reserved. On 10-8-1950, petitions were filed to re-hear the cases, which were allowed and, after hearing the parties, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1952CriLJ1299
Srinivasachari, J.1. This is a revision against the order of District Judge, Asifabad. The brief facts relating to this case are that the petitioner before us filed a complaint against an employee of the Forest Department charging him with (a) criminal trespass, (b) insult, (c) theft, and (d) assault. The complainant alleged that the forest employee entered his house without permission and asked him to stop some wood work that was going on in his house and when he refused to do so forcibly carried away all the timber that was there and also some 'Kadvi' meant for the cattle in his house. The accused pleaded that he was a Government servant and the offences said to have been committed by him happened to be in the discharge of his official duties and therefore the case could not go on unless the requisite sanction required by Section 201, Hyderabad Criminal Procedure Code: Section 197, Indian Criminal Procedure Code was obtained.The lower Court dismissed the complaints holding that the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1952CriLJ1005
Mohamed Ahmed Ansari, J.1. The question to be adjudicated in this revision petition is: When sanction for the prosecution of a public servant is necessary under Section 201 of the Hyderabad Criminal P.C.? The section provided that when any public servant was accused as such of any offence, no Court should take cognizance of it except with the previous sanction of the Government. This Hyderabad section was similar to the old Section 197 of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code, for there was nothing in it corresponding to the words 'while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty', which were introduced in the newly drafted Section 197 of the Indian Code by the Amending Act No. XVIII of 1923. These new words in Section 197 have been interpreted by the Privy Council in several recent cases and we thought it advisable, when hearing the petition in the Division Bench, to refer the case to the Full Bench in order that some of the authorities of our Court may be examined in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1955AP156; 1955CriLJ1028
Subba Rao, C.J.(1) This is a petition under Ss. 3 and 4 of Act 32 of 1952 for committing the respondents for contempt of Court. Respondent 1 is the District Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur, Respondent 2 is Personal Assistant to respondent 1 and Additional District Magistrate and respondent 3 is the acting Public Prosecutor, Guntur.(2) The circumstances under which this petition was filed may be briefly stated. The petitioner is a native of Sattanepalli village and worked as a Jamedar during the war. Thereafter he worked as Taluk Surveyor for some time and had been working temporarily as clerk at Guntur or Statane Palli in the Revenue offices. He filed a complaint for breach of trust of court properties against Sri Wahab Sahib, the then Stationary Sub Magistrate, Sattenepalli and others before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Guntur.It was transferred to the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Narasaraopet, who dismissed the same under S. 203, Criminal P. C. The petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1955CriLJ1590
Mohd. Ahmed Ansari, J.1. These proceedings for the contempt of Court have arisen on an application filed by C. B. Tara -purwala on behalf of H.E.H. the Nizam and are directed against B. G. Keskar, as well as the proprietor or the printer of Sadhana Prin-tery. The application has asked this Court to pass appropriate orders against the aforesaid respondents for their having written, published and circulated a pamphlet entitled B. G. Keskar v. H.E.H. the Nizam. The circumstances under which the pamphlet has been written, printed and published may be given concisely.On 27-4-1954 B. G. Keskar filed a document before the District Magistrate, Hyderabad City, which the applicant in this case claims to be a complaint, but which B. G. Keskar asserts to be an information Under Section 190(1)(c), Criminal P. C. In it B. G. Keskar has alleged that Mir Os-man Ali Khan, the ex-Ruler of Hyderabad, resides in a building called Raj Bhavan in Hyderabad City and has turned it into a veritable hell for the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959AP271
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. In this matter, the competence of the legislature to prescribe a court-fee of Rs. 100/- in regard to writ petitions is questioned by Mr. Chobe. It is urged by him that this law is not in conformity with the Constitution in that it violates Article 229 and Article 14 of the Constitution. Aside this, this subject is not also within the sphere of the State Legislatures which could only enact laws In regard to administration of justice and so the power conferred on the State Legislature should be confined to making of laws which are only subservient to administration of justice.2. These contentions are devoid of substance. We Are unable to see how Articles 229 and 14 of the Constitution are infringed by the State Legislature in enacting laws prescribing a particular court-fee. Reliance is placed on paragraph 3 of Article 229 which lays down that the'administrative expenses of a High Court Including all salaries, allowances and pensions payable to or in respect of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959AP398
Satyanarayana Raju, J. 1. These petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, pray for the issue of writs of Mandamus or other appropriate writs directing the respondents, namely (1) the State of Andhra Pradesi), and (2) the Market Committees, to forbear from enforcing the provisions of the Madras Commercial Crope Markets Act (XX of 1933) or the rules framed thereunder against the several petitioners. A common question of law arises in all these petitions concerning the legality and constitutional validity of Section 11 of the Act.2. The Madras Commercial Croos Markets Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was originally' enacted in 1933 by the Madras Legislature after the-previous sanction of the Governor-General had been obtained to the passing of the Act. It was subsequently amended from time to time. As the Act was-a 'law in force' immediately before the formation of the Andhra State, its provisions govern the territories forming part of the Andhra State by virtue of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960AP391
ORDERKrishna Rao, J.1. The petitioner was the accused in C. C. No. 264 of 1958 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Tirupati. His revision petition is directed against the order made on 13-12-1958 by the Sessions Judge, Chitoor, in C.R.P. No. 13 of 1958 filed under Sections 435 and 436 Criminal Procedure Code by which the case was remanded for further inquiry in the light of the observations in the order and was transferred to the Principal District Munsif-cum-first Class Magistrate, Tirupati for disposal according to law. 2. The case was instituted on a charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, Madanapalli. It appears that the petitioner was the Examiner of Copies in the Court of the District Munsif. Madanapalli and that he entered the Chambers of the Dist. Munsif at about 1 p.m., on 18-1-1958 for some official work. The District Munsif objected to his having entered the room without prior permission, sent him away from the room and a little later found fault...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1960CriLJ1064
ORDERKrishna Rao, J.1. The petitioner was the accused in C. C. No. 264 of 1958 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Tirupati. His revision petition is directed against the order made on 13-12-1958 by the Sessions Judge, Chitoor, in C.R.P. No 13 of 1958 filed Under Sections 435 and 436 Criminal Procedure Code by which the case was remanded for further inquiry in the light of the observe tions in the order and was transferred to the Principal District Munsif-cum-first Class Magistrate, Tirupati for disposal according to law.2. The case was instituted on a charge sheet, filed by the Inspector of Police, Madanapalli. M appears that the petitioner was the Examiner of Copies in. the Court of the District Munsif. Madanapalli and that he entered the Chambers of the Dist. Munsif at about 1 p.m., on 18-1-1958 for some official work. The District Munsif objected to his having entered the room without prior permission, sent him away from the room and a little later found fault...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960AP388; (1960)ILLJ593AP
Ansari, J.1. The employers of the Osmania 'University are the writ petitioners and seek a writ of certiorari to quash the award by the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad in Case No. 15 of 1955. The Government through the Notification No. 1/24/55/72 of 17-8-1955 had referred to the aforesaid Tribunal the dispute between, some of the employees and the Osmania University. Thereby the following two issues had been referred :'Whether the following demands of the workmen are justifiable? (1) Conversion of the existing consolidated wages of O. S. Rs. 26 per month into the grade of O. S. 26-1-30 with retrospective effect from April 1952. (2) Payment of Dearness allowance of O. S. Rs. 21 per month to workmen in receipt of a pay upto O. S. Rs. 50 per month.' 2. The general Secretary of the Osmania University Mazdoor Sangh had filed before the Tribunal the written statement stating that the University had agreed to implement the minimum wage of Rs. 26 but bad not given the wage scale of Rs. 26-1-30 t...
Tag this Judgment!