The main legal point established in the judgment is that any willful entry without reasonable excuse into any public place mentioned in Section 47 of the Kerala Police Act constitutes an offence, and criminal intention is not required.

PAREED PILLAY, J.

Revision petitioner who has been found guilty under Section 47 of the Kerala Police Act by the courts below challenges the conviction and sentence entered against him on the ground that no offence has been made out against him.

2. The prosecution case is that on 29-12-1987 at 4.10 a.m. the revision petitioner and three others were found on the veranda of the Government High School, Thiruvangad by P.W. 1 Sub Inspector who was on patrol duty and that they were not in a position to explain their presence satisfactorily at the untimely hour. P.W. 1 gave evidence in support of the prosecution case. He stated that he and police party were on patrol duty and it was then that he saw the revision petitioner and three others at the Government High School premises. D.W. 2 watchman of the school stated that he was not aware of any such incident as alleged by the prosecution. Both the courts below accepted the evidence of P.W. 1 and held the revision petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 47 of the Kerala Police Act (hereafter referred to as the Act).

3. The matter was referred to the Division Bench by Sankaran Nair, J. holding that 1983 Ker LT 579 : (1983 Cri LJ NOC 199) (Naseema v. State of Kerala) requires reconsideration. In Naseema's case Balakrishna Menon J. held that a reading of Section 47 itself would clearly indicate that it is only such entry as would amount to trespass that is dealt with in the section. The above decision has been followed by Padmanabhan J. in Crl.R.P. 17 of 1982.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that mere entry into any dwelling house or any other building or any land or ground attached thereto or on any boat, vehicle or vessel, or on any ground belonging to the Government or appropriated to public purposes will not constitute an offence under Section 47 of the Act. It is contended that only an entry as would constitute a trespass under the Penal Code will constitute an offence under Section 47 as the expression 'trespass' cannot have any different meaning from the one under Section 441 of the Penal Code. It is urged that all the ingredients under Section 441 of the I.P.C. must be satisfied and in that case only an offence under Section 47 could be made out.

5. Ingredients of Section 441 of the I.P.C. are the following :

(1) Entry into or upon property in the possession of another.

(2) If such entry is lawful, then unlawfully remaining upon such property.

(3) Such entry of unlawful remaining must be with intent -

(a) to commit an offence; or

(b) to intimidate, insult, or annoy any person in possession of the property.

The authors of the Indian Penal Code say:

"We have given the name of trespass to every usurpation, however slight, of dominion over property. We do not propose to make trespass, as such, an offence except when it is committed in order to the commission of some offence injurious to some person interested in the property on which the trespass is committed, or for the purpose of causing annoyance to such a person. Even then we propose to visit it with a light punishment, unless it be attended with aggravating circumstances."

Contention of the revision petitioner that offence under Section 47 can be there only if criminal trespass as defined under Section 441 of the I.P.C. has been made out is untenable. Kerala Police Act does not import into Section 47 the ingredients of criminal trespass as defined under the Penal Code. As the Act is a self-contained Code, the definition of criminal trespass in another statute cannot be invoked to decide whether any offence has been made out or not under Section 47. No criminal intention is required to constitute an offence under Section 47 of the Act. A mere entry without reasonable excuse makes out an offence. To constitute an offence under Section 47 of the Act it is not at all necessary to establish that whether such entry was with the intention to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult, or annoy