Back
R.S.BACHAWAT, S.M.SIKRI, V.RAMASWAMI
Rash Behari Chatterjee – Appellant
Versus
Fagu Shaw – Respondent
What is the requirement to establish that entry on property was with the intent to annoy, intimidate or insult under Section 441/447, IPC? What is the correct position on whether actual possession and presence at the time of trespass are necessary to convict under Section 441/447, IPC? What is the appellate court's ruling regarding the High Court's interpretation and the appropriate remedy in this case?
Key Points: - The law requires that the entry be aimed at causing annoyance, intimidation or insult, not merely that such consequence was likely (!) . - The High Court erred in holding that the appellant needed to be in actual possession and present at the trespass; possession by the appellant is sufficient, and the presence of the trespasser alone is not required for the offense (!) . - The Court held that the respondents trespassed with the dominant intention to annoy the appellant who was in possession, and the appeal was allowed, restoring the Magistrate’s judgment and sentencing considerations (!) (!) . - The judgment cites Mathuri v. State of Punjab as the controlling principle for establishing intent to annoy at entry (!) . - The land in dispute was in the appellant's possession after February 3, 1963; trespass occurred on February 16-17, 1963 (!) . - The High Court’s reliance on possession at time of trespass was incorrect; the appellant’s possession post-1963 is relevant to sustenance of the charge (!) . - The appeal reversed the High Court’s acquittal, reinstating the Magistrate’s conviction and fine with modest imprisonment for non-payment (!) . - The case clarifies that the offender’s dominant aim at entry is the key, not merely the natural consequences known in advance (!) . - The court notes the magistrate’s leniency toward respondent Fagu Shaw; suggests stricter punishment appropriate in this context (!) . - Final citation: AIR 1970 SC 20 (!) .
Judgment
SIKRI, J.: This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court at Calcutta allowing the criminal revision and acquitting the respondents of the charge under S. 447, I. P. C.
2. The only question which arises in the present appeal is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the intent to annoy the appellant has been established. The law on the point is now settled by this Court in Mathuri v. State of Punjab, 1964-5 SCR 916 at p. 927 Das Gupta, J., speaking for the Court, after reviewing the authorities, stated the law thus :
"The correct position in law may, in our opinion be stated thus : In order to establish that the entry on the property was with the intent to annoy, intimidate or insult, it is necessary for the Court to be satisfied that causing such annoyance, intimidation or insult was the aim of the entry; that it is not sufficient for that purpose to show merely that the natural consequence of the entry was likely to be annoyance, intimidation or insult, and that this likely consequence was known to the person entering; that in deciding whether the aim of the entry was the causing of such annoyance, intimidation or insult, the Cou
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
