Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Ashiq HusaIn Khan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1923)ILR45All25
AppellantEmperor
RespondentAshiq HusaIn Khan
Excerpt:
.....no. xlv of 1860 (indian penal code), section 447 - criminal trespass--offence attended by criminal force--criminal procedure code, section 522. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in..........j.1. this is an application in revision to set aside an order passed under section 522 of the code of criminal procedure under the following circumstances:the applicant and two others were charged by one altaf husain of an offence under section 447 of the indian penal code, i.e., the offence of criminal trespass. the complainant alleged that he was in possession of certain fields and that when he went to them one morning he found the accused and their servants ploughing the fields and uprooting his sugarcane crop. he remonstrated and stood in front of the ploughs to stop the ploughing, whereupon the accused who were armed with sticks and lathis rushed at him with threats and chased him out of his fields. this prosecution story was accepted and the accused were convicted. the.....
Judgment:

Lindsay, J.

1. This is an application in revision to set aside an order passed under Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under the following circumstances:

The applicant and two others were charged by one Altaf Husain of an offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e., the offence of criminal trespass. The complainant alleged that he was in possession of certain fields and that when he went to them one morning he found the accused and their servants ploughing the fields and uprooting his sugarcane crop. He remonstrated and stood in front of the ploughs to stop the ploughing, whereupon the accused who were armed with sticks and lathis rushed at him with threats and chased him out of his fields. This prosecution story was accepted and the accused were convicted. The conviction was upheld in appeal. After the order in appeal had been passed the complainant applied to the Magistrate to be restored to possession and an order was passed accordingly under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. The District Magistrate refused to interfere in revision with this order and hence the present application.

2. The argument here, as it was in the courts below, is that no order could legally have been made under Section 522, inasmuch as it is not shown that the dispossession of the complainant, Altaf Husain, was effected by the use of criminal force. It is contended that even if criminal force was used, the dispossession was complete before any such force was resorted to. But it is denied that there was in fact any use of criminal force. The District Magistrate in his order in revision thought that criminal force was not used, but I do not agree. It was proved that the complainant who had halted in front of the ploughs was obliged to run away by reason of the accused's rushing at him with sticks and lathis and using threats towards him. That, I hold, was a resort to criminal force as defined in Sections 349 and 350 of the Indian Penal Code. It must be taken therefore that the offence of which the accused were convicted was one 'attended by criminal force,' to quote the language of Section 522.

3. As for the argument that the dispossession was not occasioned by criminal force, I am unable to entertain it. It is not, in my opinion, correct to say that the accused had. actually secured peaceable possession before the complainant arrived on the scene. The complainant came up while the acts of criminal trespass were still in progress and he had not already been effectively dispossessed. That only took place when the complainant was actually driven off his lands and, as has been shown, the act which drove' him away was the use of criminal force by the accused.

4. In these circumstances I hold that the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code, was justified and there is no case, therefore, for interference in revision.

5. I may also add that it has been brought to my notice that in proceedings taken under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure an order giving possession of these same lands to Altai Husain has been made, and on the 16th of June, 1922, Ryves, J., refused to interfere with this order (see Criminal Reference No. 306 of 1922, decided on the 16th of June, 1922). This fact is an additional reason for refusing the present application, which T dismiss accordingly.


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