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

1958 Supreme(AP) 99

SANJEEVA ROW NAIDU
Yenduri Radhakrishnamurthy – Appellant
Versus
G. Mahalatchayya – Respondent


RAO NAIDU, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition preferred against the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Krishna, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 24 of 1956 by which he directed as follows:"the implied order of dismissal is set aside and the case is transferred to the Stationary Sub-Magistrate Vijayawada Taluk for fresh inquiry and disposal according to law. The petition is allowed. "

( 2 ) IN this case, the complainant filed a com-plaint making various allegations therein under Sections 323, 325, 447 and 34, I. P. C. In that complaint there is an allegation that the first blow which the 2nd accused dealt on the left cheek of the complainant resulted in one of her teeth dropping down. This allegation prima facie implies that the tooth dropped down having been dislodged out of its position-under the impact of the blow given. Since there is an allegation of dislocation of the tooth on account of the violence employed or criminal force used, the allegation would prima facie be regarded as disclosing the offence under Section 325, I. P. C. This may be the reason why the Magistrate at that time took the complaint on file without any amendment of the sections on which the comp




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