Posts

Showing posts from June, 2014
SEC.391 OF CR.P.C. - ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AT CRIMINAL APPEAL STAGE - EXAMINATION OF EXPERT - IN SEC.420 , 406 IPC - when acquittal is not based on finding of non-examination of expert - an application in appeal for examination of expert is not maintainable as the purpose not solved - though the appellate Court has power to take additional evidence under Section 391 of Cr.P.C., the said provision has to be sparingly used.- Dismissed the criminal revision =
The learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa in his
order dated 28-11-2013 specifically mentioned that the order of
acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate was not solely
basing on the non examination of the hand writing expert, but
taking the entire evidence into consideration. The learned IV
Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa also observed that there is
no mention about the non examination of hand writing expert by
the prosecution either in the appeal grounds or in the written
arguments filed in the appellate Court by the revision peti…

MINES & MINERALS = SIZER & CONFISCATION =In view of the amended Rule 9-Q (1) (i) and (ii), read with Rule 9-Q (6), the petitioners are permitted to submit applications to the officer, who seized the vehicles; the said officer shall, within three days from the date of receipt of the applications; examine whether the vehicles were used in committing the offence for the first and the second time; and, if so, consider directing release of the vehicles on payment of the prescribed penalty. If, on the other hand, the vehicles are found to have been used in the commission of the offence, for three or more times, the officer concerned shall consider directing release of the vehicles, in accordance with Rule 9-Q (6), on a bond being executed by the owners of the vehicles for their production as and when directed by the Court.=RAJESH. R, SPSR NELLORE DIST & 2 OTHERS VS PRL SECY TO PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPT, HYD & 3 OTHERS =http://csis.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo =WP&mno=2364&year=2014

MINES & MINERALS = SIZER & CONFISCATION =In view of the amended Rule 9-Q (1) (i) and (ii), read with Rule 9-Q (6), the petitioners are permitted to submit applications to the officer, who seized the vehicles; the said officer shall, within three days from the date of receipt of the applications; examine whether the vehicles were used in committing the offence for the first and the second time; and, if so, consider directing release of the vehicles on payment of the prescribed penalty. If, on the other hand, the vehicles are found to have been used in the commission of the offence, for three or more times, the officer concerned shall consider directing release of the vehicles, in accordance with Rule 9-Q (6), on a bond being executed by the owners of the vehicles for their production as and when directed by the Court.=

seizing the petitioners’ vehicles without following any
procedure, as illegal and arbitrary.=
The amended Rules, notified in G.O.Ms.No.186 dated 17.12.2013,
prescrib…

Whether the second appeal is maintainable with out filing appeal or cross objection ? - Held No.= SMT. JAYAM LEELAVATHAMMA VS NAMA JANARDHANA SETTY AND 8 OTHERS, =2014 A.P.- March .Part = http://csis.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.SA&mno=67&year=2014

Whether the second appeal is maintainable with out filing appeal or cross objection ? - Held No.Theappellant herein, who is defendant No.6 in the suit, has not challengedthat finding. Without filing an appeal against the judgment and decreeof the trial Court, the appellant cannot file Second Appeal.=
In view of the fact that the issue recorded by the trial Courtagainst the appellant/defendant No.6 has not been challenged by himby filing an appeal or cross objections when the plaintiff filed theappeal before the first appellate Court, she is debarred from filing theSecond Appeal, as she has not availed her right to file an appeal orcross objections in the first instance. Therefore, the appeal is notmaintainable and hence, it is liable to be dismissed.
http://csis.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=SA&mno=67&year=2014SA 67 / 2014
SA 67 / 2014CASE IS:DISPOSEDPETITIONERRESPONDENTSMT. JAYAM LEELAVATHAMMA  VSNAMA JANARDHANA SETTY AND 8 OTHERS,PET.ADV. : PRAMODRESP.ADV. : VENKATESWARA RA…

Amendment of pleadings = If mis-description of the property arises out of a genuine or bona fide mistake, it can be corrected even after passing of the decree also. If it is the case of the respondents/defendants that the petitioners/plaintiffs wantonly sought an amendment of northern and southern boundaries with the object of knocking away of their property, they can file additional written statement and contest the suit exposing the intention of the plaintiffs in obtaining amendment of the schedule. But at the stage of dealing with the applications seeking amendment, the Court is not expected to deeply indulge in evaluating the respective cases of the parties and the Court is not supposed to reject the amendment application with a foregone conclusion as to the merits of the case. Such a course is not permissible within the framework of Or.6 Rule-17 CPC. 19. In the instant case, it cannot be said that if the amendment is allowed it would introduce a new case or it would cause prejudice to the respondents/defendants. Amending the boundaries cannot be said to be introducing a new case.= Allam Nagaraju and 3 others.Petitioners Katta Jagan Mohan Reddy and 2 others..Respondents = 2014(Apr.Part ) http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11348

2014(Apr.Part ) http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11348

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO        

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2508 of 2013  

10-04-2014

Allam Nagaraju and 3 others.Petitioners

Katta Jagan Mohan Reddy and 2 others..Respondents  

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri P.S.P.SURESH KUMAR  

Counsel for the respondents: Sri CHALLA SRINIVAS REDDY    
                              Sri S.LAXMINARAYAN REDDY

<Gist  :

>Head Note:

? Cases Referred:
1.AIR 1977 SC 680(1)
2.(2006) 6 SCC 498
3.2006(6) ALD 29 (SC)
4.2008(2) ALT 21 (SC)


THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO        

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2508 of 2013  

ORDER:

      This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the common order dated 30.04.2013 passed
in I.A.Nos.660/2012 & 788/2012 in O.S.No.205/2011 on the file of the II
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.
      2.  I have heard Sri P.S.P.Sureshkumar, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners and…