#andhrapradeshhighcourt Archives - Page 2 of 2

31 May

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT DISPOSED OF THE WRIT PETITION OF MANDAMUS WITH DIRECTIONS, FILED AGAINST THE AUTHORITIES FOR TRYING TO DEMOLISH THE SHOP OF PETITIONER WITHOUT ISSUING ANY NOTICE

Prime Legal

Blog #andhrapradeshhighcourt, #writ

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Battula Drsv Sanyasirao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

BENCH – HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

WRIT PETITION No. 13116 OF 2023

DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 12 MAY 2023

INTRODUCTION

This writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ Order in Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents who were trying to demolish the shop of Petitioner without issuing any notice. The petitioner was in possession and of his land situated in Panduru village, Kotauratla Mandal, Visakhapatnam district and Respondents were further trying to evict the Petitioner from the said property which is arbitrary, unlawful, illegal, in violation of the Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and Rules made thereunder by consequently directing the Respondents not to interfere with the property of the Petitioner except under due process of law.

The main provision followed in this case are as follows: –

ARTICLE 226

The Indian High Courts have the authority to issue writs under Article 226 in order to enforce the fundamental rights protected by Part III of the Constitution. These writs include certiorari, quo warranto, prohibition, habeas corpus, and mandamus.

Everybody and every authority under the High Court’s jurisdiction is granted the authority granted by Article 226. This includes the government. Regardless of the location of the government, authority, or person against whom the writ is sought, it also permits any High Court to employ this power even if the cause of action partially arises inside its territorial jurisdiction.

In general, Article 226 gives the Indian High Courts broad authority to defend basic rights and uphold the rule of law within their respective domains.

ARTICLE 300-A

Article 300 A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law.

FACTS

The agricultural land was located in Panduru village, Kotauratla Mandal, Visakhapatnam, and the petitioner was its sole owner. The petitioner has erected a tiny-thatched hut on the front of the subject land and has been operating a fruit-selling business there for several years, conducting business which is in the Panchayat, Revenue, and R&B Departments.

Due to some village politics, the Panchayat, Revenue and Roads and Buildings authorities to cause loss to the petitioner, they have planned to demolish the shop of the petitioner and to grab the land, as if property falls within the road margin. Then the Panchayat and R&B staff came to the subject property and demanded to remove the shop, failing which, they will take steps to remove the shop on 03.05.2023, without any notice and without following due process of law. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that they are not interfering with the possession of the petitioner’s subject property and further they will follow due process of law. He also submitted that the issue will be resolved once survey is conducted.

JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble court has disposed this writ petition with the following directions: –

1) In the presence of the petitioner or his representatives, the third respondent (The Assistant Executive Engineer) shall perform a survey and fix the boundaries of the subject property with the assistance of Revenue officials.

2) Notice must be given to the petitioner in order to be present when the survey is conducted.

3) The respondents would be free to take the proper legal action if it turned out after the survey was performed that the petitioner had infringed.

4) The above exercise must be finished within eight (8) weeks of receiving a copy of this order, and during that time, the respondents are forbidden from interfering or ejecting the petitioner from the subject property without first following the rules’ requirements for due process of law.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN

Click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

30 May

WRIT PETITION CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF DETENTION OF THE PETITIONER’S BROTHER ALLOWED AT ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Prime Legal

Blog #andhrapradeshhighcourt, #primelegal, #writ, #writpetition

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Y Maddilety vs The State Of AP

BENCH – THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

WRIT PETITION No. 712 of 2023

DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 12 MAY 2023

INTRODUCTION –

This case is about the writ petition which is challenging the order of the detention of the brother of the petitioner.

The relevant provision followed in this case are as follows –

A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

Section – 3 Power to make order detaining certain persons: –

(1) The Government finds if any boot-legger, dacoit, drug-offender, goonda, immoral traffic offender or land-grabber is acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and if it is necessary so to do, can make an order directing that such person be detained.

(2) A District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as provided in subsection (1), exercise the powers granted by the said subsection if the Government is of the opinion that doing so is necessary considering any circumstances existing or likely to exist in any area within the local limits of their jurisdiction. The Government may make this determination by issuing an order in writing.

Section – 2(g) Definitions – “Goonda”

A “goonda” is a person who regularly commits, seeks to commit, or aids in the commission of acts punishable under Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII, or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code, whether alone or as a member of or leader of a gang.

FACTS –

As per the learned counsel of the petitioner, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent (The Collector & District Magistrate, Kurnool District )was confirmed by the 1^st respondent (State), the petitioner wants to amend the prayer of the writ petition as Yerukali Polenti Satyam, S/o late Y.Devanna, who is now lodged in Central Prison, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District to be set at liberty/ordered to be released forthwith by declaring the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.

The 2nd respondent, while categorizing the detenue as “Goonda” within the definition of Sections 2(g) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 passed the impugned order of detention.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detenue was allegedly involved in fourteen crimes, in which, some of the cases registered due to family disputes and they can be dealt with under general laws and he was already acquitted in five cases which were not even considered by the authority. That the order of detention does not have any material to justify the detenue as goonda and that the preventive detention shall not be passed. The offences alleged against the detenue do not involve any disturbance of public order and the same cannot be used for issuance of preventive detention order under Section 3 of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that there was absolutely no illegality nor there exists any procedural infirmity in the impugned action and in the absence of the same, the present writ is not maintainable. Even procedural laws were also not strictly followed by the sponsoring authority, while passing the detention orders, which amounts to procedural irregularity as well not following the provisions contained under on perusal of record by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it reveals that a blanket detention order was passed without specifying a period of detention which is invalid as which is mandated under Section 3(2) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

JUDGMENT –

In this case the court held that the impugned was made without proper application of mind and there was a serious procedural violation. Hence, Hon’ble court was of the opinion that the detenue will not fall under the category of Section 2(g) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. The order of detention does not show any material to justify the allegation that the detenue is a ‘goonda’ whose activities would be actually prejudicial to public order.

The court held that this Writ Petition was allowed setting aside the order of detention passed by the 2^nd respondent and the detenue namely Yerukali Polenti, was directed to be released forthwith by the respondents.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN

Click here to view judgement

27 May

DENIAL OF BAIL PETITION BY ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT TO A PERSON DEALING IN NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPHIC SUBSTANCES

Prime Legal

Blog #andhrapradeshhighcourt, Blog

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju vs Special Assistant Public Prosecutor

BENCH – HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3303 of 2023

Date of Judgement – 18.05.2023

INTRODUCTION

This case is about the denial of bail petition in case of non-bailable offences (section 437 cr.p.c.) and the power of high court or court of session regarding bail (section 439 cr.p.c.).

The relevant provisions followed in this case are as follows: –

Section 20(b) in The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

(b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable 1[(i) where such contravention relates to clause (a) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; and

(ii) where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b),

(A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both

(B) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.

(C) and involves commercial quantity, 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: Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.

Section 8(c) in The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder and in a case where any such provision, imposes any requirement by way of licence, permit or authorisation also in accordance with the terms and conditions of such licence, permit or authorisation.

The court heard Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.3 and Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent- State.

FACTS

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.3, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.59 of 2022 of Prakash Nagar Police Station, Rajamahendravaram Urban. A case has been registered against the Petitioner and others for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act‘).

On 21.2.2022 at 06.00 a.m., on credible information, the Inspector of Police, Prakash Nagar Police Station found Accused No.1 and 4 at V.L.Puram Raithu Bazar, Rajamahendravaram, in illegal possession and transportation of 13 bags of Ganja weighing 295 Kgs and 1.2 Kgs of Liquid Ganja in a Chevrolet Enjoy Car bearing No.AP 31 TF 3199 and Lorry bearing No.TN 52A 3508 along with motor cycle bearing No.AP 39 AD 8329. Accused Nos.1 and 4 confessed about the involvement of the Petitioner/Accused No.3 and another person.

JUDGEMENT

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was arrested on 06.1.2023 and remanded to judicial custody.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the contraband seized was about 295 KGs of Dry Ganja besides 1.2 Kgs of Liquid Ganja. Since there are specific accusation levelled against the Petitioner and that the Ganja seized was a commercial quantity, this Court was not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner at this stage.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN

click here to view judgement

27 May

DENIAL OF GRANT OF BAIL PETITION IN HEINOUS CRIMES BY ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT.

Prime Legal

Blog #andhrapradeshhighcourt, #heinouscrime, #primelegal, Blog

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Sri Akurathi Ramakrishna vs Special Assistant Public Prosecutor

BENCH – HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3421 of 2023

Date of Judgement – 18.05.2023

INTRODUCTION

This case is about the denial of bail petition in case of non-bailable offences (section 437 cr.p.c.) and the power of high court or court of session regarding bail (section 439 cr.p.c.).

All the provisions followed in this case are as follows: –

Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. Where a woman is raped by one or more in a group of persons acting in furtherance of their common intention, each of the persons shall be deemed to have committed gang rape.

Section 354 of IPC. Voyeurism

1 to 3 years + Fine for first conviction 3 to 7 years + Fine for second or subsequent conviction

Section 384 of IPC. Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 323 of IPC. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 420 of IPC. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

Section 506 of IPC. Punishment for criminal intimidation—Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 34 of IPC. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention—When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

The court heard Sri Akurathi Ramakrishna, Learned Counsel representing Sri Akurathi Ramakrishna vs Special Assistant Public Prosecutor the Petitioner/Accused No.1 and Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent- State.

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., has been filed by the Petitioner/A1, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.134 of 2023 of Eluru III Town Police Station, Eluru District. A case has been registered against the Petitioner and another for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 354(C), 384, 323, 420, 506 read with 34 of IPC.

FACTS

On 25.1.2023, when the Husband of the de facto Complainant was not at home, the Petitioner/Accused No.1 along with another came to the house of the de facto Complainant asked about her husband and offered Badam Milk. After drinking the same, the de facto Complainant fell unconscious and the Petitioner had fulfilled his sexual desires with her and taken videos in his phone. Thereafter, the Petitioner used to threaten to post videos in social media if she does not agree to his demand. In that process, the Petitioner demanded and took Bank Cheques from her.

JUDGEMENT

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was arrested on 03.4.2023 and remanded to judicial custody. Learned Counsel submits that the Petitioner was falsely implicated in this case by the husband of the de facto Complainant, who was a Colleague of the Petitioner, due to evade the loans taken from the Petitioner and his friends.

The allegations that were made against the Petitioner were heinous in nature, this Court was not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner at this stage.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN

Click here to view judgement

1 2