Busarapu Satya Yesu Babu Vs State of AP and Sake Roja on 05 Nov 2021

A single-judge bench of AP High Court held as follows,

From Para 6, Ground-1

6. On the other hand, respondent No.2 submits that petitioner cannot raise a contention that 16 other complaints were lodged by respondent No.2 that she is habituated in lodging complaints against public servants and others, as it is her personal issue and there is no illegality in the order under revision. She submits that while exercising power under Section 156(3) Courts can forward complaint to Police without issuing notice to the accused. Hence, there is no illegality in the order impugned and this revision is liable to be dismissed. Relied on Priyanka Srivastava and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

7. In the case on hand, the Magistrate has only directed the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C for investigation and directed the police to file report by17.06.2021. The Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently held that when the Magistrate applies his mind and order for investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C, he could not be said to have taken cognizance of offence and by doing so, it will be conducive to justice and save the valuable time of the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a matter which was the primary duty of the police to investigate. In this case, the Magistrate has not taken cognizance, but only referred the matter to the police for investigation. At this juncture, as argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that sanction should have been obtained as the petitioner is a public servant has no legs to stand.

From Para 8, Ground-2

8. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C and directed to submit a report which is an interlocutory order and revision against such an order under Section 397 (2) of Cr.P.C is barred under law. However, after completion of investigation, if Police come to the conclusion that complaint is filed with false allegations, they can as well close the case by referring it as false. The revision is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of its maintainability as it isnot final order and it falls under interlocutory order, which cannot be challenged.

Busarapu Satya Yesu Babu Vs State of AP and Sake Roja on 05 Nov 2021

Bhagwan Premchandani Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 4 Nov 1997

Posted on November 24 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Sri B S A Swamy has passed this reasoned order with regards to mechanical issuing of non-bailable warrants to accused by the trial courts.

From para 3,

3. I have already taken a view that the trial Court can proceed with the case without insisting for the presence of the accused vide Crl.M.P.Nos.4424/97 and 4422/97 dated 29-10-1997. Further, the action of the Magistrate in issuing N.B.W. having dismissed the application filed for dispensing with his presence cannot be appreciated by this Court.
As per Section 73 of the Criminal Procedure Code an N.B.W. can be issued only to secure the presence of any escaped convict, proclaimed offender or the person who is evading the arrest. In the instant case, being summons case, the question of arrest also will not arise. Further, the petitioner filed an application seeking dispensation of his presence on that day for the reasons stated in the affidavit. Instead of allowing the application, the learned Magistrate not only dismissed the application, but also even without giving time for his appearance issued N.B.W. Such conduct on the part of the Magistrate is depricated. The discretion vested in them should be properly exercised to secure the ends of justice but not to penalise or harass an individual with the procedural wrangles of the Court more so without visualising the evil consequences that will flow from the order that is going to be passed. This Court is often coming across with such type of orders passed by the Magistrates. Hence this Court would like lo emphasize that the Magistrates should shed the wrong practice of issuing N.B.Ws. the moment the accused fail to appear in the Court without giving an opportunity to explain the circumstances under which the accused failed to appear in the Court and in the light of the language employed in Section 73 of Criminal Procedure Code an N.B.W. can be issued sparingly that to after coming to the conclusion that there is no other way to secure the presence of the accused. In fact in Ramojt Rao v.V.V. Rajam in Cr.M.P.No.4424/97 dated 29-10-1997 this Court explained the legal position with regard to the appearance of the accused before a Magistrate and held that the Magistrate is having ample power to proceed with the case by dispensing with the presence of the accused even in a warrant case.

Indiankanoon copy:

Bhagwan Premchandani Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 4 Nov 1997

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1025663/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f767e4b014971113fe0e

http://document.manupatra.com/ap/1955-2000/ap1998/a980838.htm

https://www.lawyerservices.in/BHAGWAN-PREMCHANDANI-VERSUS-STATE-OF-A-P-1997-11-04

Index here.

K. Ranjith Vs State of AP on 01 Oct 2021

Posted on October 13 by ShadesOfKnife

A good judgment of single bench of AP High court. Useful in my DP3 WP.

From Para 10,

10. As can be seen from the aforesaid Section of law, when small quantity of Ganja is involved in commission of the offence, the imprisonment prescribed is for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both. In the instant case, the Ganja involved in commission of the offence is only 600 grams, which is below the 1000 grams. Therefore, as per the aforesaid notification, it is to be held that the Ganja involved in this case is only a small quantity and an offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act is only made out. So, the very registration of F.I.R. for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, which is relating to commercial quantity, is obviously erroneous. Clause (C) of sub-clause (ii)(b) of Section 20 of the NDPS Act applies only when the Ganja involved is of 20 Kgs. as it is a commercial quantity as per the aforesaid notification. The said offence under Section 20((ii)(b)(C) of NDPS Act relating to possession or illegal transportation of Ganja of a commercial quantity is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees. So, when it is found that only a small quantity of Ganja of 600 grams is involved in this case, it is to be held that only an offence punishable under Section 20(ii)(b)(A) of the NDPS Act is made out and not an offence punishable under Section 20(ii)(b)(C) of the NDPS Act relating to commercial quantity. So, it is obvious that the police have registered the F.I.R. quoting a wrong section of law.

K. Ranjith Vs State of AP on 01 Oct 2021

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55236845/

Citations:

Abdul Gafaoor Vs Hameema Khatoon and Ors on 15 Sep 2003

Posted on August 15 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on Supreme Court decision here, a division bench of AP High Court held that, a husband cannot be sentenced indefinitely for breach of maintenance orders.

From Para 3,

3. From bare perusal of this provision, it becomes clear that a person against whom an order under Section 125(3) of the Code is made does not become liable to imprisonment on passing of an order of maintenance, his liability to suffer imprisonment only starts if he fails to respond to a warrant issued under Section 125 (3) of the Code for payment of maintenance. A warrant has to be issued under Section 125(3) of the Code for payment of maintenance, when an application is made by the person who has been held entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the code. When such a warrant is issued for making payment of maintenance, it has to be levied as the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines and if this warrant is not responded by making the payment, then the Magistrate can order imprisonment and the imprisonment in no case can exceed one month. Therefore, it is immaterial whether there were arrears of 12 months or of any other duration. The material question is whether a warrant under Section 125(3) been issued or not and in case of one warrant issued under Section 125(3) of the Code, there can only be one imprisonment and the maximum imprisonment would be one month. So in case a person chooses to file an application under Section 125(3) of the Code on every successive month on failure to get maintenance, she may get successive orders of imprisonment if the person against whom the warrant is issued fails to make the payment. But if a person chooses to make an application after several months, then again she will be able to get an order of imprisonment on failure to make the payment which will be only a maximum imprisonment of one month. We are fortified in our view by a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Shahada Khatoon v. Amjad Ali, 1999 SCC (Cri) 1029 : (1999 Cri LJ 5060).

Indiankanoon Version:

Abdul Gafaoor Vs Hameema Khatoon and Ors on 15 Sep 2003 (IK Ver)

Casemine Version:

Abdul Gafaoor Vs Hameema Khatoon and Ors on 15 Sep 2003 (CM Ver)

Citations : [2004 DMC 1 693], [2003 ALD CRI 2 902], [2003 SCC ONLINE AP 894], [2004 AP LJ 1 154], [2004 CRI LJ 1280], [2004 CCR 2 332], [2004 HLR 1 332]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1923858/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f838e4b0149711141ca7

Pitchika Lakshmi Vs Pichika Chenna Mallikaharjuana Rao on 24 Dec 2012

Posted on August 15 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on Supreme Court decision here, which was in turn relied on by a division bench of AP High Court here, a single-judge bench of AP High Court held that, a husband cannot be sentenced indefinitely for breach of maintenance orders.

Pitchika Lakshmi Vs Pichika Chenna Mallikaharjuana Rao on 24 Dec 2012

Citations : [2012 SCC ONLINE AP 446], [2013 CRI LJ 4284], [2014 RCR CRI 5 651], [2014 HLR 1 317], [2013 ALD CRI 1 405], [LQ 2012 HC 8200]

Other Sources :

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5d8257ea714d5826cf1dd7cb

https://www.legitquest.com/case/pitchika-lakshmi-v-state-of-andhra-pradesh-rep-by-its-public-prosecutor-high-court-of-ap/78BBB

Jangam Srinivasa Rao Vs Jaagam Rajeshwari and Anr on 13 Mar 1989

Posted on August 9 by ShadesOfKnife

Single Judge bench of AP HC held as follows:

From Para 6,

6. The points for determination in these proceedings are
(1) whether the order of maintenance passed in M.C. No. 18/84 stood cancelled ?
(2) Whether under Section 125(3), Cr.P.C. the wife can seek imprisonment of the husband for non-payment of maintenance accumulated beyond a period of 12 months ?
(3) Whether the payment of Rs. 3,250/- paid as per the directions of this court can be appropriated to the maintenance due for the first 25 months as claimed by the wife ?

From Para 11, Point (2) was answered.

11. Considering the different views expressed by the various High Courts I prefer to follow the Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in Moddari Bin v. Sukdeo Bin, (1967 Cri LJ 335). The other decisions are judgments or single Judges. In my humble opinion the contraction put forward by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court is harmonesus construction and interpretation of the proviso making the proviso applicable to both the limbs of procedure contemplated under sub-section 3 of Section 125, Cr.P.C. I hold on point No. 2 that the wife the maintenance-holder cannot accumulate the maintenance for a period beyond 12 months. No application for execution of the maintenance order can be entertained for a period exceeding 12 months immediately preceding the date of application. I hold this point in favour of the petitioner. In this context I make it clear that they remedy provided under S. 125(3), Cr.P.C. is a speedy and expeditious remedy. By virtue of the order of maintains granted in M.C. 18/84 the right vested in the wife to receive maintenance from the date of the application i.e. 7-12-83. She may not be able to recover the earlier arrears by resorting to an application under Section 126(3), Cr.P.C., but still she would certainly be entitled to claim those arrear by filing a civil suit on the basis that the amount is die to her by virtue of the court order. But at the same time it should be remembered that under civil laws also her claim should be within the period of limitation. For instance, for the maintenance payable for the period 7-12-83 to 7-1-84 she should file a suit on or before 7-1-87. At the most she can recover arrears of maintenance for 3 years by resorting to a civil suit. Unfortunately in this case the right to file a civil suit for the earlier arrears is also barred by time.

Indiankanoon Version:

Jangam Srinivasa Rao Vs Jaagam Rajeshwari and Anr on 13 Mar 1989 (IK Ver)

Casemine Version:

Jangam Srinivasa Rao Vs Jaagam Rajeshwari and Anr on 13 Mar 1989 (CM Ver)

Citations : [1990 CRILJ 2506], [1989 ALT 2 295], [1989 SCC ONLINE AP 66], [1989 AP LJ 2 41], [1989 ALT NRC 2 8]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/471311/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f701e4b014971113ef2e

Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyd Vs Nese Jilakara Sreeramulu on 29 Aug 2003

Posted on August 1 by ShadesOfKnife

A Full Bench gave this decision upon a reference from a Division bench of AP High Court on the question as to whether the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Ayyala Rambabu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993 (1) Andh LT (Cri) 73 and by a learned single Judge of this Court in Nunna Venkateswarlu v. State of A. P., 1996 Cri LJ 108 is good law.

The answer was a NO.

From Paras 17-19,

17. The definition of “dowry”, the object of the Act and the above decisions of the Apex Court clearly show that any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given comes within the purview of “dowry” on three occasions in which any property or valuable security comes within its purview. They are — (i) before the marriage, (ii) at the time of marriage, and (iii) “at any time” after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period, but the crucial words are “in connection with the marriage of the parties”. This means, giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties.

18. The Legislature in its wisdom while providing for the definition of “dowry” has emphasized that any money, property or valuable security given as consideration for marriage “before, at or any time after” the marriage would be covered by the expression “dowry”, and this definition as contained in Section 2 of the Act has to be read whenever the expression “dowry” occurs in the Act, The meaning of expression “dowry” as commonly used and understood is different from the peculiar definition thereof under the Act.

19. Under Section 3 of the Act, if a person gives or takes are abets the giving or taking dowry shall be punished. Under Section 4 of the Act mere demand of dowry is sufficient to bring home the offence to an accused. Thus, any demand of money, property or valuable security, made from the bride or her parents or other relatives, or the bridegroom or his parents or other relatives, or vice versa, would fall within the mischief of “dowry” under the Act, where such demand is not properly referable to legally recognized claim and relatable only to the consideration of the marriage.

Indiankanoon version:

Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyd Vs Nese Jilakara Sreeramulu on 29 Aug 2003 (IK Ver)

Casemine version:

Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyd Vs Nese Jilakara Sreeramulu on 29 Aug 2003 (CM Ver)

Citations : [2004 EASTCRIC 3 48], [2004 ALT 2 504], [2004 ALD CRI 1 519], [2003 SCC ONLINE AP 830], [2003 SUPP ACC 875], [2004 CRI LJ 1629], [2004 HLR 2 144]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1945624/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f835e4b0149711141c0f

Bonigi Anandaiah Vs State of AP and Ors

Posted on June 17 by ShadesOfKnife

Bonigi Anandaiah was a simpleton Ayurvedic Practitioner from Nellore District who used to prepare and administer Ayurveda medicine for COVID-related/induced difficulties. AP Government leaders wanted laid a claim for this medicines, and wanted to piggy-ride on the popularity of Bonigi Anandaiah and make some Crores in the process. Anandaiah had to approach AP High Court, like many others, for relief from such harassment.

2021-05-31

The medicines P, F and L are allowed by AP High Court.

Bonigi Anandaiah Vs State of AP and Ors on 31 May 2021

2021-06-03

The medicine K is also allowed by AP High Court and the AP Government was ordered not to interfere in his work.

Bonigi Anandaiah Vs State of AP and Ors on 03 Jun 2021

Index of YCP Government atrocities listed here.

Shaik Peeru Saheb Vs Vallamsetty Haranadha Babu on 08 Jun 2018

Posted on June 14 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of AP High Court held that ‘The application in I.A.No.1734 of 2017 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not disposed of for the past more than one year.‘

Shaik Peeru Saheb Vs Vallamsetty Haranadha Babu on 08 Jun 2018

Citations :

Other Sources :

Tiyyagura Subhakara Reddy Vs Bhimavarapu Krishna Reddy on 22 Jun 2017

Posted on June 14 by ShadesOfKnife

A judgment from a single judge bench granting speedy trial…

Tiyyagura Subhakara Reddy Vs Bhimavarapu Krishna Reddy on 22 Jun 2017

Citations :

Other Sources :

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification

Busarapu Satya Yesu Babu Vs State of AP and Sake Roja on 05 Nov 2021

Bhagwan Premchandani Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 4 Nov 1997

K. Ranjith Vs State of AP on 01 Oct 2021

Abdul Gafaoor Vs Hameema Khatoon and Ors on 15 Sep 2003

Pitchika Lakshmi Vs Pichika Chenna Mallikaharjuana Rao on 24 Dec 2012

Jangam Srinivasa Rao Vs Jaagam Rajeshwari and Anr on 13 Mar 1989

Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyd Vs Nese Jilakara Sreeramulu on 29 Aug 2003

Bonigi Anandaiah Vs State of AP and Ors

Shaik Peeru Saheb Vs Vallamsetty Haranadha Babu on 08 Jun 2018

Tiyyagura Subhakara Reddy Vs Bhimavarapu Krishna Reddy on 22 Jun 2017