SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(AP) 146

MUNI KANNIAH, BASI REDDY
Gandi Pudapu Naidu – Appellant
Versus
State Of A. P. – Respondent


BAST REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS matter has been referred to a Division Bench by Krishna rao, J. , as he felt there is a conflict of views between two learned single Judges of this court with regard to the powers of an Additional Session Judge-cum-Additional district Magistrate to transfer cases from one Magistrate to another-which is the very question involved in these two connected Criminal Revision Cases. We will first decide this matter by reference to the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure and then try to resolve the conflict, if any.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to these revision cases are as follows :- on the 25th November, 1958, one Kilaparthi Sanyasi, filed a complaint before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Salur, against Gandi Pudipu Naidu and 24 others for offences under sections 395, 149 and 324, Indian Penal Code, alleging that the 25 persons had, by use offeree, carried away a large quantity of grain belonging to him. The Magistrate took the case on file as P. R. C. No. 6 of 1958, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant but before proceeding further, chose to act under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code and directed the Circle Inspector of P













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top