The court held that the trial magistrate had erred in finding that the petitioner had committed the offence of house trespass. The court held that the evidence did not support the finding that the petitioner had vacated and surrendered the rental premises in question at the time of the alleged trespass. The court further held that the trial magistrate had failed to consider the legal ingredients of Section 456 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for the restoration of possession of immovable property to a person who has been dispossessed by criminal force or show of force.

Petitioner Abdul Salam was tried for an offence punishable under S. 448, IPC in C.C. No. 661 of 1985 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras. After trial, the petitioner was found guilty under S. 448, IPC and was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Petitioner has come up with this revision challenging the legality and propriety of the said judgment and the consequent conviction and sentence imposed on him.

2. Consequent to the conviction and sentence referred to above, P.W. 1 Dhanraj N. Kochar, petitioner in Crl. R.C. 702 of 1989 filed a petition under S. 456, Cr.P.C. before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras, for the restoration of the possession of the premises bearing door number 26, Ranganathan Street, T. Nagar, Madras in Cr.M.P. 138 of 1987 in C.C. 661 of 1985 and it appears from the case records that the learned trial Magistrate without ordering notice to the respondent, namely the petitioner in Crl. R.C. 809 of 1987 allowed the same on 22-12-1987 and whereupon directed the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, T. Nagar, to restore possession of the said premises and hand over to P.W. 1 after giving adequate time for him. Aggrieved at this, it appears the respondent therein, namely the petitioner in Crl. R.C. 809 of 1987 preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge at Madras. But as there was a delay of 600 days in filing the same Crl. M.P. 3057 of 1989 was filed by the revision petitioner under Art. 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. On hearing both parties, namely the revision petitioners in Crl. R.C. 809 of 1987 and 702 of 1989 as the petitioner and respondent respectively, the learned Sessions Judge, in his order dated 29-11-1989 for the reasons and findings given in the same has condoned the delay of 600 days and consequently the above appeal was numbered as O.A. 264 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madras. Aggrieved at this, Crl. RC 702 of 1989 was filed challenging the legality and propriety of the same.

3. In the context of the pendency of Crl. RC 809 of 1987 and Crl. RC 702 of 1989 before this Court, the above appeal in C.A. 264 of 1989 relating to the very same issue was withdrawn and transferred to the file of this Court and numbered as Crl. RC 389 of 1992. Since the substantial issue arising in these three revisions relates to one and only dispute as to whether the finding of the trial Magistrate that the accused had committed the offence of house trespass is correct or not and the parties involved are the same, with the consent of the Bar, I have proposed to deliver a common order.

4. One another fact which has become necessary to refer at this stage is that in pursuance of an order passed by this Court on 5-8-1989 made in Crl. MP 1456 of 1988 respondents 2 to 5 were added as parties in Crl. RC 809 of 1987.

5. The short facts of the prosecution case which are necessary to appreciate the relevant cases on hand are stated as follows :

P.W. 1 Dhanraj N. Kochar, purchased the building situated in door number 26, Renganathan Street, T. Nagar, Madras and become the owner. He requested all the tenants to vacate and deliver vacant possession. The petitioner in Crl. RC 809 of 1987 was one of the tenants therein conducting a teashop. To comply with the request, it appears that both petitioner and P.W. 1 agreed that on payment of Rs. 50,000/- by P.W. 1 to the petitioner, petitioner has to vacate and delivered the tenanted premises in question. Accordingly, it appears that P.W. 1 has given a cheque for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner and that the petitioner has not accepted the cheque since he had no banking accounts but however has demanded that the said amount is to be paid in cash. Therefore on 28-3-1984 the petitioner received Rs. 50,000/- in cash and accordingly he vacated the premises in question and handed over possession of the said premises by g