The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive evidence and compliance with legal provisions, such as notice requirements, in criminal trespass cases.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the verdict of acquittal dated 9-3-1981, passed by the then Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhansi whereby the accused respondent Ram Chandra Singhs Criminal Appeal No. 112/79 was allowed after setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 30-6-1979, passed by Shri R. S. Maurya, Munsif Magistrate, Jhansi and thereby he was acquitted.

( 2 ) PERMISSION to prefer the appeal was allowed by this Court vide its order of 18/05/1980.

( 3 ) IN brief, the facts giving rise to this appeal may be recapitulated as below :-

( 4 ) THE appellant/complainant Kishori Lal Agarwal filed a complaint in the Court of the then Munsif Magistrate 1st Class (Court No. 4), Jhansi in the year 1979 with the allegations that he was the owner of house No. 217 situated in Mohalla Gardhuria Ganj in the town of Mauranipur. The respondent No. 1/accused Shri Ram Chandra Sindhi was the tenant of the first floor of the two rooms apartment of the said house. On 14-12-1978, he had illegally occupied one room of the said house at the same floor located towards south of the staircase and in spite of the complainants request to vacate the said room, he continued to be in unauthorized possession thereof and thereby committed an offence of house trespass punishable under Section 448, IPC. Shri Ram Chandra Sindhi denied the complainants version and pleaded that he was falsely implicated in this case on account of animosity. As a matter of fact, there were four rooms at the first floor of the aforesaid house and he was tenant of the entire first floor comprising all the four rooms, for the last 15 years. The complainant on the occasion of the marriage of his sister requested him to provide temporary possession of one room. Since the complainants temporary need was genuine, he allowed him to use for a few days one of four rooms. The remaining three rooms continued to be in his lawful possession. Even after the marriage of his sister, the complainant did not vacate the room he had taken possession of, with the permission of the accused and in this way, he himself committed an illegal act of continuing in an unlawful and unauthorized possession of the said room.

( 5 ) THE prosecution examined four witnesses in support of his case while the accused examined Ram Narain as the lone witness in his defence. The prosecution witnesses supported the complainants theory of the accused having entered in unlawful possession of the room in question.

( 6 ) ON having scrutinized the prosecution as well as the defence evidence led in support of their respective versions by the parties, the Munsif Magistrate, Jhansi arrived at a conclusion that the complainant had succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused under Section 448, IPC. On the basis of the said conclusion, the Munsif Magistrate recorded a verdict of conviction of the accused under the aforesaid section but instead of sentencing him to imprisonment, extended the benefit of Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Probation of First Offenders Act and released him with a command of admonition. The accused having felt aggrieved of the said conviction, filed a Criminal Appeal No. 112/79 which was allowed by the Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhansi. The judgment and order of conviction as also the admonition was set aside and the accused was held not guilty and accordingly he was acquitted of the charge under Section 448, IPC. Learned Sessions Judge arrived at a finding that the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses was not worthy by credit and therefore, the charge of criminal trespass was not made out against the accused. Learned Sessions Judge has also recorded a finding of there being a lacuna in the charge. As no specific date in the notice sent to the accused for vacation of the room in question was mentioned, compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 441, IPC was held to be not fulfilled. On the basis of this technical defect and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses b