Criminal trespass under Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code does not require instantaneous intimidation, insult, or annoyance upon entry into possession of a property. The intention to intimidate, insult, or annoy can be formed subsequently and still constitute the offense.

H.R.Khanna, J.

1. This revision petition, filed Dy Mata Din Singh, I directed against the order of the learned Additional sessions Judge, Hissar, affirming on appeal the conviction 01 the petitioner Under Section 448, Indian Penal code, dui reducing his sentence from a fine of Rs. 200.00 to that of Rs. 75.00 , or in default three weeks simple imprisonment. Bhanwar Singh son of the petitioner, was also tried along With the petitioner but he was acquitted.

2. The prosecution case is that lara Devi, wire or the petitioner, let out a house, situate in Bniwani, to Krisnan Chand (P. W.) on a monthly rent of Rs. 4.00 about 8 or years ago. Krishan Chand used to pay the rent of that House regularly to Tar a Devi. On the morning of lawsuit, It is stated, that petitioner along with his son, Bhanwar Blngh came to that house when Krishan Chand was away broke open the lock and took its possession uniawtuny. Report about this occurrence was lodged the same day by Krishan Chand.

3. The petitioner, at the trial, stated that the house in question had not been rented out to Krishan Chand. me trial magistrate accepting the prosecution evidence against the petitioner, convicted him.

4. On appeal, the conviction of the petitioner was not Challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the only prayer which was made was for reduction of sentence. The learned Additional sessions Judge briefly discussed the evidence adduced by the prosecution and founo It to be convincing. The defence version was Held to be not Worthy of credence. The conviction of the petitioner was, accordingly, upheld but the sentence was reduced from a line of Rs. 200.00 to that of Rs. 75.00 .

5. in revision, Mr. Gupta has argued that even if the facts, as found by the Courts below were accepted to do correct, the petitioner Is not guilty of the offence unaer Section 443, Indian Penal Code, it is urged that as Krisnan Chaml (P. w.) was not present at the time the lock of the house in dispute was broken and possession taken by the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner maae His entry into the property in dispute with intent to intimidate, Insult or annoy the person in possession of such property.. Reference in this connection has been made to a Single Bench case Bata Krishna Gtiose V/s. The State reported in . I have given the matter my consideration and am unable to subscribe to "the proposition enunciated Dy the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Section 441 of the Code defines criminal trespass and reads as under-.

441. Whoever enters into or upon property In the possession of another with intent to commit an ottence or to intimidate, Insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or, having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with Intent thereby to intimidate, Insult or annoy any such person, or with mteni to commit an cffence, is said to commit "criminal trespass".

Criminal trespass, as defined in the above section, no doubt contemplates that the entry into or upon property in possession of another should be with intent to commit an thence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person m possession of that property, and it is obvious that a mere entry Into or upon property in possession of anotner wiuwin the Intention specified in the section would not make we act of entry to be criminal trespass unless the case covered by the latter part of Section 441 which oeaia with cases of persons who having lawfully entered into or upon any property, unlawfully remain there with intern thereby to Intimidate, insult or annoy any such person or with intent to commit an offence.

There is nothing, however, in Section 441 which requires that the intimidation, insult or annoyance, which is causea to the person In possession of a property as a result of the entry upon that property, should be instantaneous and confined only to the moment of entry and not caused suose-quent to the entry.

All that the section requires is