The main legal point established in the judgment is that the act of trespassing and obstructing the complainant's possession amounted to criminal trespass under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code.

1. These appeals are against the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Second Class Magistrate of Trivandrum in C.C.19/58 and 21/58 on his file. Both the cases relate to the same incident. C.C.19/38 arose on a private complaint filed by the appellant against the two accused for offences under S.448, 452 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case is as follows:

2. The property comprised in Survey No. 1480 of the Palkulangara Pakuthy and the building therein bearing T.C. No. 23/520 belongs to the complainant. The house was taken on rent by the second accused. The first accused is a sub-tenant under the second accused. The accused were both residing in the house. While so the rent fell into arrears and a case B.R.C. 217/54 was filed for eviction of the accused from the building on the ground of arrears of rent. Eviction was allowed and the building was duly delivered to the complainant on 7-3-1957. On 23-3-1957 at 10 A.M. while the complainant was preparing to thatch the house the first accused interfered and prevented the complainant from thatching the house and pushed him to eject him out of the house. The complainant refused to go out. It was further stated that the complainant was wrongfully restrained in the eastern room of the house. On the same set of facts the police charged a case against the first accused alone for an offence punishable under S.448 of the Indian Penal Code and that is the subject matter of C.C. 21/58. The cases were tried simultaneously and the accused were acquitted.

3. Leave of appeal has been granted under S.417 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of Criminal Appeal 337/58. As both the cases relate to the same incident it is enough to deal with one of the appeals and I propose to deal with Criminal Appeal 337/58.

4. Before dealing with the evidence in the case, I shall refer to the findings of the learned Magistrate which by themselves make it clear that the order of acquittal is improper and unsustainable. The relevant findings are the following:

"Exts. P2 to P5 show conclusively that the order of eviction was duly executed and the complainant was put in possession of the house. By proper recourse to law the complainant obtained eviction and the accused have no more right to linger on in the property. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence taken as a whole it may be seen that the people of the locality consisting of certain communist workers have taken the law into their own hands to help the accused either rightly or wrongly, and warmed up by the enthusiasm and spirit of the occasion the first accused set up a claim to continue his occupation in the house. The following facts can be read through the evidence on record. On 23-3-1957 the complainant went with some of his coolies to re-thatch the house and thereby exercise his right of possession. The first accused objected and was encouraged to do so by the second accused and some other people of the locality professing themselves as communists. The complainant and his workers were overpowered and hence they had to retreat". Having entered these findings the learned Magistrate observed that he could not believe Pw.1 in toto because his evidence contains exaggerations and contradictions regarding the case of unlawful restraint, added a remark to the effect that the evidence of Pws. 2 to 7 considered along with that of Pw.1 does not place matters beyond a shadow of doubt, and ended up with the proposition that "the act done in the assertion of a bonafide right which even though might ultimately turn out to be false and groundless and however high-handed does not amount to criminal trespass". The order of acquittal is based on these grounds.

5. The evidence in the case may next be considered. Eight witnesses have been examined for the prosecution and Ext. P1 to P6 have been produced. Pw.1 is the complainant. He swears that he gave the building on rent to the second accused in 1124 and the second accused allowed the ren