Cist if iffebe if wrongful restraint.

This is a criminal revision petition filed against the convictions and sentences in C.C. No. 1076 of 1949 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Kandukur, and upheld in C.A. No. 68 of 1950, Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s Court, Kandukur.

The facts are: P.W. 1, the complainant, has purchased 6 acres of land from P.W. 7, thereby rounding up an extent of 3 acres 40 cents already owned by him in S. No. 352. It is his case that he has been cultivating all these areas by passing through the plan-marked pathway, in S. No. 351 after crossing S. No. 356, which is a Donka Poramboke. This plan-marked pathway passes through the land of the accused. There has been ill-feeling between these neighbouring land-owners.

On 1st August, 1949, at about 7 a.m. according to the complainant, when he was passing through the Donka S. No. 356 with five ploughs, the thirteen persons accused by him came there with sticks and obstructed him and the bulls and beat and drove away the bulls. On account of this he is stated to have come home fearing that if he proceeded further he would also be got beaten. Therefore he preferred a complaint against these thirteen accused persons.

In the Court of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Kandukur, no case was found to have been made out against accused 2 to 10 and 12. Only accused 1, 11 and 13 were found guilty of an offence under section 341, Indian Penal Code, and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each and in default simple imprisonment for 1½ months. The other accused were acquitted. In appeal the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kandukur, confirmed the convictions and sentences of fine but altered the default sentence into simple imprisonment for one week each.

The point taken before me is that the accused persons by striking the bulls and making them run away did not cause wrongful restraint to the complainant and in support of this the decision in Gopal Reddi v. Lakshmi Reddi1 was relied on.

I shall now briefly examine the ingredients of the offence of wrongful restraint under section 341, Indian Penal Code, and examine whether the case relied upon for the revision petitioners is helpful to them.

The offence of wrongful restraint, as has been pithily put, is linear in its scope; while wrongful confinement is circular in its character. Wrongful restraint is keeping a man out of a place where he wishes to be and has a right to be. The following illustrations given in the Original Draft Code will elucidate the meaning of this section:

(a) A builds a wall across a path along which Z has a right to pass. Z is thereby prevented from passing. A wrongfully restrains Z.

(b) A illegally omits to take proper order with a furious buffalo which is in his possession and thus voluntarily deters Z from passing along a road along which Z has a right to pass. A wrongfully restrains Z.

(c) A threatens to set a savage dog at Z if Z goes along a path by which Z has a right to go. Z is thus prevented from going along the path. A wrongfully restrains Z.

(d) In the last illustration if the dog is not really savage but if A voluntarily causes Z to think that it is savage and thereby prevents Z from going along the path A wrongfully restrains Z.

From these illustrations it will appear that a person may obstruct another by causing it to appear to that other that it is impossible, difficult or dangerous to proceed as well as by causing it actually to be impossible, difficult or dangerous for that other to proceed. The obstruction must be physical. A verbal prohibition or remonstrance does not amount to such obstruction. The offence is the abridgment of the liberty of a person against his will. Thus, these are the principles which are embodied in the decision relied upon by the criminal revision petitioners, viz., Gopal Reddi v. Lakshmi Reddi1 as also the decisions in Emperor v. Rama Lala2, Durga Pada Chatterjee v. Nilamani Ghose3, In re Peria Ponnuswami Goundan4, Muhammad Yusuf Sahib, In re5Muthu Padayachi v. Emperor6, Maharani of Nabh