//
archives

prohibition act

This tag is associated with 3 posts

Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.=No doubt, the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant are such as to attract punishment under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, but that in our view has to be done under the said laws and taking recourse to preventive detention laws would not be warranted

Crl.A.67/12 1   REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.67 OF 2012 [@ SLP(Crl) No(s).8114 of 2011]     MUNAGALA YADAMMA Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF A.P. & ORS. Respondent(s)     O R D E R Leave granted. 2. The appellant’s husband, Shri Munagala Anjaiah, son of Gandaian, … Continue reading

release of crime vehicles = In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat[1] the Apex Court has laid down that in case of vehicles seized during investigation, they should not be allowed to deteriorate by being kept unused and unattended in the premises of the police stations. Therefore, the vehicle has to be entrusted to the interim custody of the petitioner subject to appropriate conditions.

            HON’BLESRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO             CRIMINAL PETITION No.10146 OF 2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to direct the Station House Officer, Jangaon P.S., Warangal District, to forthwith release Auto bearing registration No.AP 36X 7037 seized in connection with Crime … Continue reading

At the cost of repetition, it has to be observed that a plaint cannot be rejected only on the basis of a defence available to a defendant, and the question as to whether any averment in a plaint constitutes res judicata or is the basis of any misinterpretation of a judgment has to be considered at the hearing of the suit. Not at the threshold. Though the learned counsel for the parties have addressed arguments touching partly on the merits of the matters, this Court has chosen not to refer to them, lest, any view expressed thereon would have its shadow or impact upon the adjudication of the matter by the trial Court.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. Nos.525 of 2011 and bt 07-07-2011 V. Narasimha Reddy and others Sara Abdul Gafoor and others Counsel for the petitioners : Sri K. Rama Krishna Reddy,learned Senior Counsel Counsel for respondents : Sri Sunil B. Ganu :COMMON ORDER: Respondents 1 to 17 herein (for short ‘the respondents’) filed … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,299 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com