Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Bai Samrath - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Application for Revision No. 228 of 1917
Judge
Reported in(1918)20BOMLR106
AppellantEmperor
RespondentBai Samrath
Excerpt:
penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 341-wrongful restraint-lease of a shop by one joint-owner-locking up of the shop by the other joint-owner.;the accused, one of the two joint-owners of a shop, put her lock on the shop which was lot out by the other joint-owner without her consent. the tenant charged the accused with the offence of wrongful restraint in that he was prevented by the lock from entering into the shop :-;that the accused had committed no offence, inasmuch as she had affixed her lock to a house of which she was the joint-owner and the complainant was no tenant of hers. - - 1. we think that this is quite plainly a bad conviction. 2. there are two observations i should like to make on this case......the accused, who, according to the facts found, is one of two joint owners of a shop, put her lock on the shop. without her agreement the other joint owner had leased the shop to the complainant; and the complainant has accused the present applicant that she has wrongfully restrained him because she has put her lock on to the shop and thereby prevented him from entering the shop.2. there are two observations i should like to make on this case. the first is that even if the action of the applicant could be construed as coming within any of the penal provisions of the penal code, yet the matter in dispute is so plainly a civil dispute that i think any magistrate would have been not only justified but would have been acting in a very desirable way, had he dismissed such a complaint as.....
Judgment:

Heaton, J.

1. We think that this is quite plainly a bad conviction. The accused, who, according to the facts found, is one of two joint owners of a shop, put her lock on the shop. Without her agreement the other joint owner had leased the shop to the complainant; and the complainant has accused the present applicant that she has wrongfully restrained him because she has put her lock on to the shop and thereby prevented him from entering the shop.

2. There are two observations I should like to make on this case. The first is that even if the action of the applicant could be construed as coming within any of the penal provisions of the Penal Code, yet the matter in dispute is so plainly a civil dispute that I think any Magistrate would have been not only justified but would have been acting in a very desirable way, had he dismissed such a complaint as being an abuse of the process of a criminal Court. But on the facts here proved it cannot, it seems to me-and this is my second observation-be truly said that what the applicant has done can possibly-come within any of the penal provisions of the Code. She has affixed her lock to a house of which she is the joint owner, and how that can conceivably amount to wrongfully restraining a supposed tenant, who is not her tenant, from entering the shop, I cannot understand.

3. I am quite clear, therefore, in my own mind, that this conviction must be set aside and that the fine, if paid, must be ordered to be refunded.

Shah, J.

4. I am of the same opinion.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //