ORDER :- This is an application in revision by Jodha Ram Gadaria, a resident of Ahata Agha Turab Khan, Husainganj, Lucknow.

2. The applicant was convicted by a Magistrate under S. 448, I.P.C. and Sentenced to a fine of Rs. 60/- only. His appeal before the Sessions Judge was dismissed The facts which led to his prosecution and conviction may be briefly stated as follows :

On 30-10-1950, the applicant purchased a house situate in Ahata Agha Turab Khan Husainganj, Lucknow, from one Jagdamba Prasad its previous owner. The house was then occupied by Bishun Dutt, complainant as a tenant. The applicant could not, therefore, enter into actual possession of the house. On 30-11-1950, Bishun Dutt who is employed as a driver in the Transport Section of the U.P. Co-operative Department and Marketing Federation left Lucknow for Benaras with his family after locking the house. The rent for the month of November is alleged to have been sent by him to Jodha Ram on 19-12-1950. It is alleged that Jodha Ram refused to accept this money order. He again sent the rent for December, 1950 on 18-1-1951 and the rent for January 1951 on 26-2-1951. These two money orders are also alleged to have been returned by the applicant. The applicants case, however, is that these money orders were never received by him.

During this interval, however Jodha Ram applied to the City Magistrate on 12-1-1951, for permission to break open the lock and enter into possession of the house. His allegation was that Bishun Dutt had unnecessarily locked the house and that he had really given up possession of the house. The City Magistrate ordered that the applicant could do what he desired at his own risk but that he must break open the lock and take over possession in the presence of respectable persons. Armed with this order Jodha Ram broke open the lock on 27-2-1951. The goods of Bishun Dutt were found in the house. An inventory was made and Jodha Ram entered into possession of the house and intimated this fact to the City Magistrate on 3-3-1951.

On 4-4-1951, Bishun Dutt returned from Benaras. To his surprise he found that the house had been occupied in his absence by Jodha Ram. He also discovered that Jodha Ram had taken certain legal proceedings before entering into possession of the house. Naturally he at first applied to the City Magistrate that the order passed by him was passed in his absence and that he was entitled to possession of the house. He also filed a complaint in Court. The complaint was, however, dismissed in default and his application to the Magistrate was also dismissed. Then he made another application on 8-9-1951, and although it was at first dismissed by the Magistrate under S. 203, Cr. P.C. it was restored to the file by the order of the Sessions Judge for further inquiry. On further inquiry, the applicant was convicted by the Magistrate as stated above and his appeal was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Both the Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge held that the occupation by the applicant was wholly illegal and unauthorized and that it was done mala fide with a view to annoy the complainant.

3. The question for determination in this revision mainly is whether the act of the applicant in entering into possession over the house was with the intent, in the words of S. 441, I.P.C., "to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property." It is not the case of the complainant that the applicant wanted to commit any offence or to intimidate or insult the complainant. Therefore the question merely is whether the applicant broke open the lock and entered into possession of the house in order to annoy the applicant. The Court below has found that this was in fact the applicants intention and after hearing learned Counsel for the applicant, I have no hesitation in endorsing the conclusion reached by the learned Sessions Judge.

The circumstances of the case speak for themselves. The complainant was in occup

Click Here to Read the rest of this document