IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Raghubar Dayal, J.
KARIM BUX - Appellant
Versus
REX THROUGH KARIMULLAH - Respondents
Criminal Revn. 1579 Of 1949
Decided On : 02/16/1950
Mischief - Land Dispute - The court held that the mere storage of material on the open land could not have directly caused the damage to the complainant's wall. It was the abnormal heavy rains and accumulation of water that led to the destruction, and the applicant had no intention to cause wrongful loss or damage to the complainant. Therefore, no offence under Section 427, Penal Code was made out.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant stored earth and other materials on an open piece of land, which led to the accumulation of water and damage to the complainant's wall. The applicant was convicted under Section 427, Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no offence under Section 427, Penal Code was made out as the damage was not directly caused by the applicant's actions and there was no intention to cause wrongful loss or damage to the complainant.
Issues: Interpretation of Section 427, Penal Code and determination of the applicant's intention and knowledge regarding the potential damage caused by the storage of materials.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the section contemplates a direct act leading to the destruction of property, and in this case, the damage was the result of abnormal heavy rains and accumulation of water, not the applicant's actions. Additionally, the applicant had no intention to cause wrongful loss or damage to the complainant.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision, set aside the lower court's order, and acquitted the applicant of the offence under Section 427, Penal Code. Any fine paid was to be refunded.
( 1 ) THERE is an open piece of land between the houses of Karim Bux applicant and Karimullah, complainant. In 1948 the applicant stored earth and other materials on this open land. When heavy rains came, water appears to have accumulated there and to have caused damage to the wall of Karimullah, with the result that a portion of the wall fell down. It is in evidence, which is believed by the Courts below, that Karimullah asked the applicant to remove the materials, and that the applicant promised to remove but did not remove. On this fact the applicant was convicted under Section 427, Penal Code, His conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge. He has, therefore, come to this Court in revision.
( 2 ) I am of opinion that on the facts found, no offence under Section 427, Penal Code is made out. Section 425, Penal Code is : "whoever, with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief". " i am of opinion that the section contemplates some direct act on the part of the mischief does either personally or through someone else, which leads to any of the results mentioned in the section. The mere storage of the material on the open piece of land could not have damaged the complainants wall. The damage was really the result of the accumulation of water due to abnormal heavy rains. It cannot, therefore, be said that the applicant caused the destruction of the complainants wall.
( 3 ) FARTHER, it is clear that the applicant had no intention to cause wrongful loss or damage to the complainant, What was urged by the learned counsel appearing for the State was that the applicant knew that he was likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the complainant. It is true that the complainant (sic) apprehended, and any person might have thought, that the storage of the material might lead to some accumulation of water, which might be detrimental to the kachcha wall of the complainants house. It does not, however, appear to me that anybody could have foreseen the heavy rains and such, accumulation of water as would of the complainant. Such a large opening is a clear indication of the abnormal rains and accumulation of water. Such an apprehension, or knowledge of such a possibility is not sufficient to amount to a knowledge in the applicant that his conduct was likely to cause the destruction of a portion of the complainants wall. I am, therefore, of opinion that no offence under Section 427, Penal Code is made out against the applicant.
( 4 ) I, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the order of the Court below, and acquit the applicant of the offence under Section 427, Penal Code. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded.
.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.