Andhra Pradesh High Court: Important Judgments Of 2021

Amravati Land Scam 1. "Cannot Criminalize Private Sale Transactions": Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes A Batch Of FIRs In Amaravati 'Insider Trading' Case [Chekka Guru Murali Mohan & Anr. State of Andhra Pradesh] The High Court has quashed few criminal cases filed in connection with the alleged 'insider trading' in land transactions at Amaravati. Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy observed that private sale transactions cannot be criminalized and that the concept of the offence of "insider trading", which is essentially an offence in the field of stock market relating to selling and buying the securities and bonds, cannot be applied to the offences under Indian Penal Code and cannot be read into Section 420 IPC or into any provisions in the scheme of Indian Penal Code. 2. Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Amaravati Land Scam FIR Against Former Advocate General & Others [Dammalapati Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh] The High Court quashed the FIR registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau against former Advocate General Damallapati Srinivas and others in alleged Amaravati land scam. The FIR was registered alleging that Srinivas and other accused had purchased large tracts of land in and around Amaravati, before it was announced as the new capital of the State of Andhra Pradesh after its bifurcation. Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy observed that Srinivas, as the AAG, was not privy to any information relating to exact location of capital city. He had no role to play in the process of identifying the location to establish capital city to know the information regarding exact location of capital city. Criminal 3. Social Media Postings Against Judges Can Be Construed As Conspiracy, Attack Against The Institution: AP High Court Denies Bail To 5 [Sudduluri Ajay Amruth @ Gowthami K v. State of Andhra Pradesh] The High Court denied bail to five persons booked for allegedly making derogatory posts against High Court and Supreme Court Judges, observed that putting social media against judges could be construed as a "conspiracy" and attack against the whole institution. Justice D. Ramesh also observed that the allegations made against the judges come within the purview of scandalizing the Courts.Also Read: Specify Steps To Prevent Circulation Of Defamatory Remarks, Intimidatory Threats Affecting Justice Administration: AP High Court To CBI 4. Police Can't Deprive A Person Of Right Of Franchise If No Case Registered Against Him/Her On Account Of Unlawful Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court [Gandham Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh] The High Court observed that if there is no case registered against the petitioners for any unlawful act, the petitioners cannot be illegally detained by the respondent police officials which may have the effect of depriving them from exercising their right of franchise on the date of election. 5. Sedition Charge- Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To Suspended Judicial Officer Who Expressed Dissatisfaction With Govt. Functioning [S. Rama Krishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh] The High Court granted Bail to a suspended Judicial Officer who expressed his disaffection in the manner in which the Government was being run and has been booked under Sections 124-A, 153, 153-A of I.P.C. in a television debate, the Petitioner had remarked that he is looking forward to cutting off the head of the CM. Justice R. Raghunandan Rao granted bail noting that the petitioner is a suspended Judicial Officer, and it is highly unlikely that he would seek to abscond. The Court further observed that the crime is based on a statement that is said to have been made in a television debate that is recorded and cannot be altered or tampered with and further, a period of 60 days has already elapsed, and as such, the question of any further tampering with or affecting the investigation would not arise. 6. Girlfriend Or Concubine Not Liable For Prosecution U/S 498A IPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court [Anumala Aruna Deepika v. State of Andhra Pradesh] The High Court held that only a relative of a husband by blood or marriage is liable for prosecution under Section 498-A of IPC (cruelty to woman). Justice Cheekati Manavendranath while quashing the FIR against the petitioner, observed that a girlfriend or concubine, not being connected by blood or marriage, is not a relative of the husband for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC. 7. Andhra Pradesh High Court Issues Guidelines For Prompt Transmission Of Bail Orders [Korra Bhaskara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh] While granting bail to an accused under the NDPS Act, the High Court took serious note of the significant delay in issuing the certified copies of the orders. It observed that despite the conscious recognition of several pending cases, it is difficult to issue the order copies within a short period due to staff shortage. Justice Lalitha...

Andhra Pradesh High Court: Important Judgments Of 2021

Akshita Saxena

Tags