Posts

Showing posts from April, 2013

no fire arms came to be seized from the possession of the petitioner and therefore, he cannot be charged for the offence under Section 25(1)(a) & 27 of Indian Arms Act . Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 reads as hereunder:- “25. Punishment for certain offences---[(1) Whoever— (a) manufactures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer, or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5; or (b) shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an imitation firearm into a firearm in contravention of section 6 ; or xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx” Section 27 of the Arms Act reads as hereunder:- 27. Punishment for using arms, etc. (1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of Section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. (2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of Section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. (3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of Section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, shall be punishable with death”. = It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is the person who supplied arms to A-1 and A-2 nor it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is found in possession of any fire arm. In that view of the matter, I find that there is no material placed on record by the prosecution to charge the petitioner for the offences under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of Indian Arms Act.- Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of discharging the petitioner of the accusations leveled against him under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Revision Case No.583 of 2013ORDER:
        This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 13-03-2013 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1037 of 2013 in C.C.No.797 of 2009 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, whereby and whereunder, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed by A-3-Bhunampalli Madan Mohan Reddy under Section 239 Cr.P.C.
2.     Facts, in brief, giving raise to filing of this petition by B.MadanMohan Reddy/A-3 in C.C.No.797 of 2009 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, are:-         LW-1-B.Dhanunjaya, Inspector of Police,  Task Force, Central Zone, Hyderabad city received credible information on 20-5-2002 at 1800 hours regarding movement of four persons armed with fire arms, under suspicious circumstances near Swathi Hotel, Paradise Circle, Secunderabad.  He along with his staff, proceeded to Paradise Circle, Secunderabad and apprehende…

appointment of an Advocate Commissioner = seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for taking measurements of the shop room and also for noting down the physical features of the shop room of the plaintiff/petitioner as well as the shops of the defendants/respondents.= In my opinion, the trial Court has set out valid and justifiable reasons for dismissing the interlocutory application moved by the plaintiff/petitioner belatedly and hence, the order under revision does not call for any interference at my hands. The Court below has rightly concluded the issue that the case set up by the plaintiff/petitioner that the defendants have encroached upon, has got to be established independently. It is obvious that the petitioner/plaintiff is seeking to rope in by way of improvement, a new plea, which is not forming part of the original pleading, for the said purpose, the Commission cannot be taken out.

CRP 1277 / 2013

CRPSR 7178 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENTJUTURI SREENIVASULU  VSIMTIAZ AND 2 OTHERSPET.ADV. : NAGI REDDYRESP.ADV. : SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227DISTRICT:  KURNOOL
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1277 OF 2013
ORDER:           This revision is preferred by the plaintiff in the suit, aggrieved by the orders passed on 31.12.2012 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, dismissing I.A.No.2053 of 2012 moved by him seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for taking measurements of the shop room and also for noting down the physical features of the shop room of the plaintiff/petitioner as well as the shops of the defendants/respondents.           It should be noted that the suit is instituted in the year 2006. It was dismissed for default once on 27.02.2009.  Subsequently it was restored on 29.10.2012.   The plaintiff has filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination in the Court and the matter is posted for marking of documents and for cros…

Order - XXI Rules – 54 (1A), 66 and 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for execution of the decree. sale batta was not paid.= The executing Court ought to have given time to the petitioner to pay batta. The fruits of the decree, which is obtained after so much of ordeal, cannot be denied to the petitioner on hyper-technicalities at the time when the Courts are sensitizing the people about their rights and making efforts to take justice to the doorsteps of the people. The impatience executed by the trial Court cannot be countenanced.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYCIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1091 AND 1104  OF 2013

COMMON ORDER:
Petitioner filed O.S. No.189 of 2010 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, for recovery of amount.  The suit was decreed and the decree became final.  Thereupon, petitioner filed E.P. No.115 of 2011 under Order - XXI Rules – 54 (1A), 66 and 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for execution of the decree.  It was noticed that sale batta was not paid.  Petitioner filed E.A. No.26 of 2013 with a prayer to condone the delay of
35 days in filing batta.  The executing Court passed order dated 31-01-2013 dismissing the said E.A.  On the same day, E.P. was also dismissed on the ground that sale batta was not paid.

          2.  Heard Sri P.V.S.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
3.  Though the respondent was served with notice, he has not entered his appearance.
4.  The executing Court ought to have given time to the petitioner to pay batta.  The frui…

specific performance suit - Vs- the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Act = The appellant filed O.S.No.371 of 2011 against the 1st respondent in the Court of I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 23.08.2008 in respect of the suit schedule property. The property was mortgaged by the 1st respondent with the 2nd respondent. During the pendecny of the suit, the 2ndrespondent initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Act (for short ‘the Act’) against the 1st respondent. In view of this development, the appellant filed I.A.No.1045 of 2011 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. with a prayer to restrain the 2nd respondent from proceeding against the property, including by way of sale. = It is a matter of record that the property is under mortgage to the 2nd respondent. The mere pendency of the suit cannot disable the 2nd respondent from enforcing the mortgage. At the same time, the 1st respondent cannot be permitted to defeat the rights of the appellant by permitting the property to be sold in favour of third parties. The appellant expressed his bona fides by stating that he is prepared to liquidate the loan, for which the property is offered as security. He has also made a deposit of Rs.20,00,000/- in compliance with the interim order passed by this Court.= Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. The I.A. is partly allowed directing that it shall be the obligation of the 1st respondent to settle the dispute pertaining to the mortgage of the property with the 2nd respondent, in such a way, that the property is not put to sale. In case, it becomes inevitable to sell the property, it shall be open to the appellant to negotiate with the 2nd respondent within three months and clear the debt to protect the property. Such arrangement shall be without prejudice to the rights of the parties. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
C.M.A.No.363 of 2013
JUDGMENT: (Per LNR, J)
The appellant filed O.S.No.371 of 2011 against the 1st respondent in the Court of I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 23.08.2008 in respect of the suit schedule property. The property was mortgaged by the 1st respondent with the 2nd respondent.  During the pendecny of the suit, the 2ndrespondent initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Act (for short ‘the Act’) against the 1st respondent. In view of this development, the appellant filed I.A.No.1045 of 2011 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. with a prayer to restrain the 2nd respondent from proceeding against the property, including by way of sale.  It was pleaded that if there exists any liability towards the 2nd respondent, the consideration for the property can be adjusted towa…

Dismissal from service - the same material has been placed both before the departmental authority as well as the criminal Court, inasmuch as the charge laid against the petitioner being substantially the same. When once a Sessions Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is not guilty, a contrary finding arrived at by the departmental agency, at any rate, deserves to be reconsidered. ?= only in the event that a criminal Court acquits a person honourably, would there arise any occasion calling for re-consideration of the entire matter, but not otherwise.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 8016 OF 2013 O R D E R:                 This Writ Petition is preferred by a former Attender of an Electricity Distribution Company at Vikarabad seeking a writ of mandamus for getting the order of dismissal passed on 18.10.2006 by the Superintending Engineer reviewed, on the strength and basis of the judgment rendered by the VI Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) at Vikarabad in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2009.                 Heard Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner on 19.03.2013 and also today in extenso and                     Ms. Sridevi, learned counsel deputizing for Sri P. Lakshma Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.                 The writ petitioner was appointed by the respondents, on compassionate grounds, as an Attender as his father died leaving the family in harness.  Very tragically, the brothers of the writ petitioner have complained that the writ petitioner has produced a bogus …

without considering the explanation and request for regularization for the demand notice in respect of un- authorized construction, no demolishion shall be made

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI
W.P. NO. 8085 OF 2013

DATED: 19TH MARCH, 2013
Between :
Mohammed Arif

Petitioner
And
The Greater Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Hyderabad and another
Respondents
 ORDER:

          This writ petition is being disposed of with the consent of Sri Md. Zia-ul-Haque, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Nagesh Bheemapaka, who has taken notice on behalf of the respondents.           Though the petitioner has challenged the notice No.G-79/UC/ACP6/58/GHMC/2012 dated 24.12.2012 issued under Sec.452(1) and 461(1) of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, he seeks a limited relief at the hearing of the writ petition to direct the first respondent to pass orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner within a time frame and protect his interest till orders are passed thereon.           The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner of property of the premises bearing municipal No. 8-1-164/184, situated in Sy.No.…

equal treatment with respect to identically situated contractors was required on the part of the Government.= his request for awarding benefit of escalation without tender discount was denied to him though in identical fact situation similar request of the other contractor i.e., M/s. Raghava Constructions was favourably considered. The petitioner states that identical recommendation was made by the Chief Engineer so far as the petitioner and the said M/s. Raghava Constructions is concerned. But, however, the Government has rejected the petitioner’s request and has favourably granted the request of M/s. Raghava Constructions and thereby, the petitioner complains of arbitrary and discriminatory treatment at the hands of the Government.- the recommendations of the Chief Engineer. So far as the petitioner’s case is concerned, letter of the Chief Engineer dated 01-04-2009 is addressed to the Secretary to the Government. We have also seen similar recommendation by the same Chief Engineer under his letter dated 08-05-2009 so far as M/s. Raghava Constructions is concerned. In our view both the said recommendations are similar. As there were similar problems in handing over required lands, existence of standing crops in the alignment and non-shifting of electrical lines etc., it is for those reasons that in both the cases extension of time was granted in three spells without imposing liquidated damages with respect to both the contractors. It is for this reason that for the works executed beyond the agreement period, specific rate per cubic meter was recommended by the Superintending Engineer and the same was further recommended by the Chief Engineer to the Government for consideration. While under G.O.Rt.No.44, Irrigation and CAD (PW: Major Irrigation. III) Department, dated 19-01-2010, the Government issued orders for considering the petitioner’s case but with tender discount, whereas ten days thereafter under G.O.Rt.NO.75 by the same department, dated 29-01-2010, orders were issued in case of M/s. Raghava Constructions accepting the request for awarding benefit of escalation without tender discount. We are unable to see any distinction between the two contractors who are identically situated and we are also unable to see any justification why both of them are treated differently. The learned single Judge has rightly considered the said aspect and reached the same conclusion as reached by us.

HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Writ Appeal No. 214 of 2013
DATED: 11-03-2013
Between: State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary, Irrigation & CAD (PW.Major Irrigation.III) Department, Hyderabad and another                    …  Appellants
And                                                                                                    
UAN MAX INFRA LIMITED (formerly known as M/s. G. Venkata Reddy & Co.,), Re-designated as Max Infratech (India) Pvt., Ltd., 4th Floor, Plot No. 319 & 320, Ayyappa Society, Madhapur, Hyderabad, rep., by its GPA Holder Kasuganti Raj Narsing Rao
                             … Respondent





























HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Writ Appeal No. 214 of 2013

JUDGMENT(per Sri N.V. Ramana, ACJ)
          Heard the learned Additional Advocate General and Sri Siva Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counse…

last seen circumstance alone is not sufficient to fasten the guilt of the accused= The last-seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. In this case there is positive evidence that the deceased and the accused were seen together by witnesses PWs 3 and 5, in addition to the evidence of PW 2.” 13. Except the last seen theory, there is no other incriminating evidence to show that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. Hence, in the absence of any other corroborative evidence adduced by the prosecution, this Court is of the view that the trial court rightly acquitted the accused and we see absolutely no reasons to interfere with the same.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABADMonday, the 11th day of March,Two Thousand and ThirteenPRESENTHON'BLE SRI JUSTICEK.C. BHANUAND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICEM.S. RAMACHANDRA RAOCRIMINAL APPEAL No.291 of 2013Between:The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor… AppellantAndGaini Narayana and others… RespondentsThis Court made the following:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICEK.C. BHANUANDHON'BLE SRI JUSTICEM.S. RAMACHANDRA RAOCRIMINAL APPEAL No.291 of 2013
JUDGMENT:        (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu) This Criminal Appeal, under Section 378(1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, "Cr.P.C.") is filed by the
State against the Judgment, dated 05.10.2007, in Sessions Case No.270 of