1. A short point is involved in this appeal as to whether after having held by the trial court that the accused persons had committed tresspass, whether the tresspass was civil or criminal tresspass. The trial court has termed it as a civil tresspass, and the learned Chief Government Advocate assails this finding on the ground that there was sufficient evidence on the record to show that the accused had annoyed threatened and intimidated the complainant, therefore it would be criminal tresspass. According to him ingredients of sec. 441 RPC which defines tresspass are fully established in the case and therefore the accused persons were not entitled to be acquitted. The finding of the trial court is also that the complainant was in possession of the land in questions on the date of occurrence and the accused person had tresspassed into it. Mr R. N. Bhalgotra appearing for the accused has attempted to assail this finding of the trial court but we are afraid that he cannot assail this finding because he has taken benefit of this finding.

2. We examined the record and heard the learned counsels for the parties.

3. The authority relied upon by Mr, Bhalgotra viz Kot Singh Vs. State AIR

Click Here to Read the rest of this document