Home
/

News Updates
/
Andhra Pradesh High Court Monthly...

Andhra Pradesh High Court Monthly Digest: April, 2022

Jagriti Sanghi

6 May 2022 11:52 AM GMT

2. Show-Cause Notice And The Final Order By Public Authority Having Different Reasons Is Grave Illegality: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Lance Naik Korrapati Kishore Kumar Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 47

Justice Satyanarayana Murthy of Andhra Pradesh High Court, passed a detailed order stating that show-cause notice and the final order cannot have different reasons or grounds as it denies the noticee the opportunity to rebut the allegations.

In UMC Technologies Private Limited v. Food Corporation of India (2021), the Apex Court held that the show cause notice must spell out clearly or its contents be such that it can be clearly inferred therefrom.

3. Writ Is Not A Proper Remedy For Seriously Disputed Question Of Facts That Are Matters Of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Sri Madarnanchi Rama Swamy Dharmasatram Private Trust Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 48

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition which brought up for consideration seriously disputed questions of facts that are matters of evidence, and held that the same falls outside the writ jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Justice D.V.S.S. Somayajulu observed that the case had fundamental question to be decided about the land i.e. whether the land was donated or occupied. Was the land "forcibly taken over" was another issue. The petitioner's inaction for years was also clearly visible. There was no "gift deed' but per se some contemporaneous evidence was produced. Hence, there were seriously disputed questions of facts.

4. Issue Of Notice Of Hearing Is A Statutory Requirement Under Section 75(4) Of CGST Act Before Imposition Of Tax Or Penalty: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case title: M/s. Sree Constructions, Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 49

The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition by an assesse as there was no notice given to him before contemplating to pass an adverse Tax Assessment Order which is violative of Section 75(4) of CGST Act, 2017.

The provision Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, reads as under:

"An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person."

5. Essential Commodities Cannot Be Confiscated Without Giving A Notice And Opportunity Of Hearing Under Section 6B Of EC Act: Andhra Pradesh HC

Case Title: Dommaraju Vinay Versus The State of A.P.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 50

The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed writ petition holding that statutory notice before confiscation of essential commodity is mandatory under Section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act.

Section 6B provides that no order confiscating any essential commodity package shall be made unless such person from whom it is seized is given a notice informing him of the grounds on which it was proposed to confiscate and is given an opportunity of making a representation against the ground of confiscation.

6. Power Of Attorney Executed Outside India If Not Duly Stamped Within 3 Months Of Receipt In India Will Be Impounded & Charged Penalty: Andhra Pradesh HC

Case Title: Pedapudi Alfred Johnson Jeyakaran Jesudasan Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 51

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ordered the impounding of Power of Attorney (GPA) which was executed outside India. The GPA was not stamped within three months after it had been first received in India as per Section 18 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao observed "Though the instrument was executed outside India and it was not duly stamped and presented before 3rd respondent within the period of three months, the said authority can impound the same and collect the required stamp duty and penalty and validate the document."

7. License Is Treated As Contract And Extension Of License Is Purely A Matter Of Discretion And The Courts Cannot Intervene: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title : Gadda Ramesh Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 52

In this case, Justice R. Raghunandan Rao held that the courts cannot intervene in matters of extension of license as license is treated as a contract. The license has to be treated as contract and the mater of extension is purely a matter of discretion of the contracting parties.

8. Handwriting On A Disputed Document Cannot Be Compared With Signatures On Vakalat & Written Statement: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Byalla Devadas Versus Sivapuram Rama Yogeswara Rao

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 53

The Andhra Pradesh High Court in this case ruled that no time limit is fixed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending disputed writings to the handwriting expert and it can be done at any stage of trial. Furthermore, the handwriting on a disputed document cannot be compared with the signatures on Vakalat and Written Statement as these are not assured standard documents.

Justice Ninala Jayasurya relied on P. Padmanabhaiah v. G.Srinivasa Rao, 2016, in which it was held as:

"In the well-considered view of this Court, the defendants signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard as according to the plaintiff even by the date of the filing of the vakalat the defendant is clear in his mind about his stand in regard to the denial of his signatures on the suit promissory note and the endorsement thereon and as the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant might have designedly disguised his signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be ruled out prima facie."

9. NDPS Act | Commercial Quantity Of Contraband Seized, Mere Non-Mentioning Of Exact Weight In FIR Not Fatal To Prosecution Case: Andhra Pradesh HC

Case Title: Raju Jat Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 54

The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that mere non-mentioning of exact quantity of ganja in FIR will not render prosecution's case meritless, if the amount obtained from the accused is a commercial quantity.

Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy held that:

"In the said facts and circumstances of the case, mere non-mentioning of exact quantity of ganja in F.I.R by itself is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. As the quantity of ganja that was seized from the possession of the petitioners is a commercial quantity, the bar and rigour contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies to the present facts of the case."

10. Right To Speedy Trial Does Not Protect An Accused From All Prejudicial Effects Caused By Delay: Andhra Pradesh High Court Reiterates

Case Title: CY. Pratap Reddy Versus State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 55

The Andhra Pradesh High Court reiterated that the matter can be remanded back to trial Court for trial of the case even if there is delay and the accused cannot be protected from all prejudicial effects under the right to speedy trial unless actual prejudice has been proved.

"Its core concern is impairment of liberty. Possibility of prejudice is not enough. Actual prejudice has to be proved."

11. Public Servant Can't Be Prosecuted Under SC/ ST Act In Absence Of Averments In FIR Showing 'Willful Negligence' Of Duties: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: N. Appa Rao Versus The State Of AP

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 56

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently discontinued an investigation in a crime in which the First Information Report did not indicate any willful negligence of duties by public servant which were required to be performed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Justice C. Praveen Kumar observed that the petitioners were undoubtedly public servants. But the averments in the First Information Report did not indicate any willful negligence of duties which were required to be performed under the POA Act.

The criminal petition was allowed as it was very clear from the allegations in the report that no offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.

12. 6 Kgs Ganja Not Commercial Quantity, Rigours Of Bail U/S 37 NDPS Act Not Applicable: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Dinesh @ Dinesh Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 57

The Andhra Pradesh High Court granted bail to a man accused of possessing 6 Kgs of Ganja, observing that the same is not a "commercial quantity" and thus the case for grant of bail will not be governed under Section 37 of NDPS Act.

Commercial Quantity in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is defined under Section 2(viia) of the Act. It means any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette. Presently, commercial quantity of Ganja is 20 Kgs or more.

13. Covid-19 No Longer A Valid Ground To Deny Permission For Taking Out Padyatra: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Karampudi Vijay Pal v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 58

The Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the State to consider the petitioner's request to conduct padyatra to the office of the Chief Minister.

Justice D. V. S. S. Somyajulu observed that Covid-19 is no longer a valid condition to stop him from the padyatra.

"Considering the submissions made, this Court has to agree the reason No.1 (COVID-19) is no longer a valid ground for rejecting the permission. The petitioner also agrees to furnish a route map and also the clear and categorical details of the participant along with Aadhar card and other documents of the identity of the people, who are going to accompany the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also that all the people, who are accompanying the petitioner, are law abiding citizens."

14. Possession Of 16 Kg Ganja Does Not Attract The Bar Under Section 37 Of NDPS: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To Accused

Case Title: Nandurkar Satish Dowlathrao V. State Rep By The Public Prosecutor

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 59

The Andhra Pradesh High Court granted bail to a person accused of illegal possession of 16 kgs of Ganja.

Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy observed:

"The contraband involved in this case is 16 kgs of Ganja which is not a commercial quantity. Therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the Act is not applicable to the present facts of the case."

The petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of 16 kgs of Ganja that he was apprehended by the police and the contraband was seized from his possession.

15. Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To Person Accused Of Illegally Transporting 55 Kgs Ganja

Case Title: Arun Kumar Mahipal Singh V. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 60

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh granted bail to a person accused of illegally transporting 55 KGs of Ganja in his car.

Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy observed that he has been languishing in jail for the last more than 240 days' period of time. Since the entire investigation in this case is completed and charge sheet was also filed. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, his further incarceration is not warranted.

16. Hindu Rule Of Damdupat Does Not Apply To The State Of Andhra Pradesh For Any Money Transactions: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Edhellacheruvu Balarami Reddy Versus Edhellacheruvu Munaswamy Reddy

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 61

The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that the Hindu Rule of Damdupat which specifies that the interest amount charged cannot exceed the principal amount, does not apply to money transactions in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

The Court, with regard to applicability of Rule of Damdupat, relied on Suryapaga Ravikumar v. Pakkela Ramarao & Ors., 2009 in which the composite court of Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that Rule of Damdupat had no application whatsoever to the State of Andhra Pradesh in respect of any transactions.

17. Relief Of Specific Performance In An Agreement Of Sale Will Not Be Granted If Vendor Has No Absolute Title Over Suit Schedule Property: Andhra Pradesh HC

Case Title : Gampala Naga Raju Versus Shaik Nazeerunnisa

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 62

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an agreement of Sale cannot be decreed to be performed if the seller did not have absolute right and title over the suit schedule property in view of Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The provision states that contract to sell or let property by one who has no title is not specifically enforceable.

18. "Heinous": Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Bail To Warden Of Blind School Accused Of Raping Visually Challenged Girl

Case Title: Sunkara Ramu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 63

The Andhra Pradesh High Court denied bail to a warden of blind school, accused of raping a visually challenged girl.

Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy observed that the offense is of serious nature. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to grant of bail.

"….Therefore, having regard to the heinous nature of the offence and the grave nature of the offence in which the petitioner is involved, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage in the facts and circumstances of the case."

19. Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To Man Arrested For Carrying "Toy Gun" To Movie Theatre

Case Title: MAROJU VAIKUNTA BALABJI @ BALAJI Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 64

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently granted bail to a man arrested under Sections 290 (Punishment for public nuisance), 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation) r/w 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 for carrying a toy gun to a cinema theatre.

Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy observed that the offenses under section 290 and 506 IPC are bailable offenses and charges under section 25 of Arm act are prima facie not made out because the gun used by the petitioner was a "toy gun".

20. S.482 CrPC | Criminal Proceedings Can't Be Quashed If Specific Accusations Made Against Accused, Can't Conduct Roving Inquiry: Andhra Pradesh HC

Case Title : Uggina Nagamani Versus Kona Persisurani

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 65

The Andhra Pradesh High Court reiterated that when there are specific accusations in the FIR, charge sheet and witness statement to police, the court does not have the jurisdiction to embark upon appreciation of material in a petition under Section 482 of CrPC.

Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy observed:

"Prima facie when an accusation has been made, this Court would not embark upon appreciation of the material in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings."

21. Registered Gift Deed Can't Be Unilaterally Cancelled By Donor Without Consent Of Donee: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Chelluboyina. Nagaraju Versus Molleti Ramudu alias Vijayalakshmi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 66

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that unilateral cancellation of a registered gift deed by donor does not affect the rights of the donee as it is contrary to the law under Registration Act.

"Cancellation of gift deed unilaterally by donor is contrary to the Rules under the Registration Act. Thus, cancellation does not affect the right of the respondents/plaintiffs," Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti held.

It added that in such cases, the latin maxim nemo dat quad non habit applies squarely, meaning No person can convey better title than what he has.

22. Mere Payment Of Advance At Time Of Entering Into Lease Would Not Inure To The Benefit Of Tenant: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title : M/s. Mobile and Movie World, Versus Sri Ghulam Abbas Khurasani

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 67

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the Second Appeal filed by the tenant as it did not find any need to interfere in the finding of the trial Court, passing the order of eviction over non-payment of rent. The court ruled that mere payment of advance amount at the time of entering into lease would not inure to the benefit of tenant. Tenant at the most is entitled to recover the amount.

23. Correctness Of Judicial Order Said To Be Wilfully Disobeyed Can't Be Decided In Contempt Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Ajay Kumar Parasaramka Versus Pradeep Kumar Rath

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 68

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a Court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction.

Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy held "While dealing with an application for contempt the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order...That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible,"

The Bench ruled that utter disobedience of the order in the case caused serious damage to the judicial institution itself. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be decided in contempt proceedings. The authorities have to implement the order without giving any interpretation to it.

24. Caste-Based Insult Over Telephone Conversation Not An Offence U/S 3 SC/ ST Act If Not In "Public View": Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: G.P. HEMAKOTI REDDY, ANANTHAPUR DIST. Versus P.P., HYD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 69

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC & ST Act), there has to be averments that the words have been uttered in view of public with an intention to humiliate the complainant that he belonged to a particular community.

Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy observed: "In the case on hand, it is not the case of 2nd respondent-defacto complainant that when the telephonic conversation was taking place, there were people present at that place. It is also not his case that the discussion that went on between 2nd respondent-defacto complainant has been over-heard by the public at large,"

25. Conditional Bail May Be Granted For Non-Bailable Offences U/S 439 CrPC If Considerable Progress In Investigation: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Mara Manohar Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 70

The Andhra Pradesh High Court in exercise of its special power under Section 439 of CrPC granted conditional bail to the petitioner who was accused of a non-bailable offence as there had been considerable progress in the investigation since the time of arrest.

26. Plea Of Alibi By Accused Can't Be Taken Into Consideration At Pre-Trial Stage As It Is A Disputed Question Of Fact: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Sanikommmu Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 71

The Andhra Pradesh High Court in a case dismissed the petition for discharge of accused on his plea that he was not present at the scene of offence during the commission of the offence. The court ruled that plea of alibi by accused cannot be taken into consideration at the time of framing of charges, since it is a disputed question of fact.

Justice Cheekati Manavendranath confirmed the decision of the trial Court as a plea of alibi is a matter relating to a question of fact

"When the accused has taken a plea of alibi, undoubtedly it is a matter relating to question of fact as to whether the accused was present at the scene of offence at the time of the offence or not. In a way, it amounts to taking a plea of alibi by the accused. It is settled law that the burden of proving the said plea of alibi is on the accused. Therefore, they are all disputed questions of fact which requires evidence and appreciation of the same in the final adjudication of the case."

27. Simultaneous Initiation Of Criminal Case U/S 145 CrPC & Civil Proceedings Over Land Dispute 'Abuse Of Process': Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title : G.Ramesh Babu, Chittoor Dt., Versus The State Of Ap., Rep Pp And 3 Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 72

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that multiplicity of litigation was not in the interest of parties. If civil dispute over title of land is already instituted, then parallel criminal proceedings under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure is meaningless.

Section 145 provides that the Executive Magistrate, if satisfied from a report from police officer can pass an order, where dispute is concerned about land or water and is likely to cause breach of peace.

Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy observed, "Simultaneously initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. along with the civil proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of the Court,"

28. Order Of Administrative Tribunal Not Amenable To Judicial Review U/Art 226 In Absence Of Jurisdictional Error/ Patent Perversity: Andhra Pradesh HC

Case Title: M/s. Indian Minerals and Granite Company Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 73

The Andhra Pradesh High Court did not issue Writ of Certiorari in a writ petition which challenged the order of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal as there was neither jurisdiction error nor patent perversity.

"In the considered opinion of this Court, there is neither jurisdictional error nor there is any patent perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal which warrant issuance of writ in the nature of Writ of Certiorari. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to meddle with the order passed by the Tribunal," Bench of Justice A.V.Sesha Sai and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed.

29. Micro Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act Is Not Applicable To Work Contracts Even With Elements Of Supply In It: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT v. THE UNION OF INDIA , and connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 74

In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition to hold that the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short 'MSMED Act') was not applicable to the contract because contracts were work contracts with an element of supply and not mere supply and service contracts. Furthermore, it was held that facilitation council under the Act did not have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute as memorandum was not filed before entering into the contract.