The timing of possession restoration is crucial in determining disobedience of an order prohibiting interference with possession.

Headnote:
Section 188 - Crop Possession - The court held that since the petitioner raised and harvested the crop before possession was restored to the opposite party, there was no disobedience of the order prohibiting interference with possession. The conviction under Section 188 (2), Penal Code, was set aside.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner raised and harvested the crop before possession was restored to the opposite party.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no disobedience of the order prohibiting interference with possession, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.
Issues: Disobedience of the order prohibiting interference with possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's actions did not constitute disobedience of the order, as possession was not restored to the opposite party before the crop was raised and harvested.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence of the petitioner were set aside, and his bail bonds will be cancelled.

ORDER

1. The crop was raised by the petitioner and it was harvested by him before possession was restored to the opposite party. There was therefore no disobedience of the order prohibiting the petitioner from interfering with the possession of the opposite party and the conviction under Section 188 (2), Penal Code, is unsustainable. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner are, therefore, set aside and his bail bonds will be cancelled.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document