S. MADHUSUDAN RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned III Additional judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada in CC. No. 142 of 77 on the fite of his court. The appellant is the complainant. The respondents 1 to 4 herein are the accused 1 to 4 in the case, who were tried for offences punishable under sections 426, 447 and 352 I. P. C. .

( 2 ) THE case of the complainant is that on 1 -5-1977 at about 9 a. m. the four accused threatened the complainant s servant, pulled away the pegs in front of the complainant s shed and forcibly trespassed and occupied the complainant s site for the benefit of A-4 who raised a thatchedshed on the site two days later. The plea of the accused is one of complete denial. Their case is that the land in dispute is poramboke adjoining the patta land of Lakkaraju Satyanarayana, that there is a custom in the village for the owners of the patta land to enjoy the poramboke adjoining their patta land and that the vacant site which is poramboke land was taken possession of and has been continuously in the possession of A-4 ever-since he purchased the adjoining patta land of Lakkaraju Satyanarayana. In support of his case the complainant has examined four witnesses including himself as P. W. 1. The accused did not examine any witnesses on their behalf.

( 3 ) ON a consideration of the evidence, the learned Magistrate held that the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt with regard to the necessary intention for committing the offence of criminal trespass and accordingly acquitted the accused.

( 4 ) SRI K. V. Ramana Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellant contends that though the land in question is government poramboke land, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 clearly shows that it has been in the possession and enjoyment of the complainant and so the action of the accused in forcibly taking possession of the same from the complainant is criminal trespass. It is admitted by the complainant in his cross-examination that the disputed poramboke is adjoining the patta land of Lakkaraju satyanarayana, that the said patta land was purchased by A-4, that while the patta land was owned by Lakkaraju Satyanarayana, he (the complainant) was a tenant under Lakkaraju Satyanarayana and that after it was sold to a-4 he gave up possession of the patta land in favour of A-4. It is clear from the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 that the patta land adjoining the disputed poramboke land was originally in the possession of the complainant as tenant of Lakkaraju Satyanarayana and the possession was subsequently transferred to A-4 after Lakkaraju Satyanarayana sold that land to A-4. It is not improbable in the villages for patta owners to enjoy the adjoining poramboke land. In fact, the complainant did not have any right in the disputed poramboke land when he first obtained its possession, he could take possession of the same only because he got possession, though as tenant, of the adjoining patta land of Lakkaraju Satyanarayana. Having lost possession of the patta land, he should have lost possession of the adjoining poramboke land also. Even if he did not voluntarily give up possession if A-4 entered on the poramboke land in the assertion of his customary right as the owner of the adjoining patta land, a-4 would not be committing an offence under section 447 I. P. C. in so far as his intention is not to intimidate, annoy or commit an offence but to assert his bona fide right.

( 5 ) SRI. K. V. Ramana Rao, the appellant s learned counsel vehemently urges that the land in question is government poramboke and once it is found to be in the possession of the complainant anyone else than the government forcibly entering upon the land commits the offence of criminal trespass. It is argued that for a conviction for criminal trespass, the title of the complainant to the property is immaterial and once the complainant s possession is established, the persons unlawfully entering upon the pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document