In a criminal trespass case under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused entered the property with the intent to commit an offense, intimidate, insult, or annoy the person in possession of the property.

JUDGMENT :

Acharya, J. - This revision is directed against the judgment dated 12-9-1966 in G.R. Case No. 550 of 1965 passed by Shri B.K. Patnaik, B.A., L.L.B., Magistrate 1st Class (Judicial). Sambalpur convicting the Petitioners under Section. 447/34 Indian Penal Code, and sentencing them there under to pay fine of Rs. 10/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 days.

2. The prosecution case in short is that on 11-6-1965 at about 6 in the morning, the accused persons trespassed, ploughed and sowed paddy in plot Nos. 746 and 738 of Khunti No. 5 in village Pankimal belonging to and in the possession of the informant, Lochan Kisan. The accused persons did not listen to the intervention of some gentlemen of the village. Lochan Kisan thereafter informed the police who after investigation submitted charge-sheet u/s 447/34, Indian Penal Code against the Petitioners.

3. In the trial the Petitioners totally denied the occurrence. One defence witness was examined on behalf of the Petitioners.

4. At the outset the learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the impugned judgment is bad in law as the reasons for the Magistrate's decision have not been stated in accordance with law. u/s 367, Code of Criminal Procedure in every judgment it is necessary that not only the points for determination, or the decision thereon should be stated, but the Judge should also state very clearly therein the reasons for such decision. The statement of reasons for the decision being an important ingredient of a judgment, it should be done in such in a manner that it can be known there from that the Judge consciously applied his mind to the evidence on record and the materials before him, and having considered all those things in a judicious manner he arrived at a finding either to convict or to acquit the accused persons. In this regard. I would refer to the decision reported in AIR (Volume 41) 1954 Allahabad, 1041, wherein it has been held that:

The third requirement laid down in Section 367, Code of Criminal Procedure viz., the reasons for the decision, is an important ingredient of a judgment. Compliance with law in this regard should not be merely formal but substantial and real. Where the statement of reasons turns out to be mere hollow pretension of a baseless claim of application of mind by the Court, the judgment is robbed of one of its most essential ingredients and forfeits its claim to be termed a judgment in the eye of law.

The statement of reasons for the decision in a proper and judicious manner is also of immense importance when a non-appealable sentence is passed against the accused; as otherwise the higher Courts in the exercise of their revisional jurisdiction may feel seriously handicapped in making a proper assessment of the matter.

5. Having gone through the judgment of the learned Magistrate in this case, I find that the Magistrate has acted in a very perfunctory manner in writing out this judgment. The reasons for the decision have not been properly stated, as there is no proper consideration or assessment of the evidence on record, there has been no sifting of the oral evidence with reference to the accused persons, and there is no proper application of the Magistrate's judicial mind to all the materials before him. This is not a desirable state of affairs, specially coming from a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. The judgment, therefore, cannot be termed as a judgment in the eye of law.

6. Mr. Murty next contended that there is no finding regarding the criminal intention of the accused persons, and as such the conviction cannot be maintained. This being an offence u/s 447, Indian Penal Code the essence of the offence is the intent with which the trespass was committed. To make out a case of criminal trespass it is not enough to show that the accused persons entered into the property in the possession of another, hut it must he shown or found from the evidence on record that the main intention was to commit an