Skip to content


NaraIn Das and anr. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1919All300(1); 51Ind.Cas.351
AppellantNaraIn Das and anr.
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 448 - house-trespass--building not in possession of complainant--intention to annoy or insult, absence of. - - the magistrate has written a long and detailed judgment in which he has set out the facts very clearly......has written a long and detailed judgment in which he has set out the facts very clearly. the school building, which is the subject-matter of the dispute, was dearly not the property of the complainant in the case. it was built by public subscription and he started a school in it with the assistance of certain persons whom he subsequently refused to allow to interfere with his management of the school. on another school being started his pupils all left him and he closed down. he went away and in his absence the applicants and certain others took possession of the main building on behalf of the other school, which is also a public institution, and started to hold certain classes in it. the complainant returned and put a lock upon the building which the opposite party at once.....
Judgment:

Tudball, J.

1. The applicants have been convicted of criminal trespass under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, and have been sentenced to fines of Rs. 10 and Rs. 20, respectively. The Magistrate has written a long and detailed judgment in which he has set out the facts very clearly. The school building, which is the subject-matter of the dispute, was dearly not the property of the complainant in the case. It was built by public subscription and he started a school in it with the assistance of certain persons whom he subsequently refused to allow to interfere with his management of the school. On another school being started his pupils all left him and he closed down. He went away and in his absence the applicants and certain others took possession of the main building on behalf of the other school, which is also a public institution, and started to hold certain classes in it. The complainant returned and put a lock upon the building which the opposite party at once removed. On these facts the Magistrate has held that the applicants have committed criminal trespass in that they entered upon the property with the intention of annoying the complainant. It is quite dear that there was no such intention in their minds at all. The intention with which they entered upon the property had nothing to do with the annoying of the complainant, and it is also very doubtful whether he was in possession of the building at the time when the entry was made. It was not his building nor had it been entrusted to him. He had closed the school and had gone away, and it is impossible to say that the applicants entered upon the building in order to insult or annoy him. On the facts found the applicants ought to have been acquitted. I allow the application and set aside the convictions and sentences. The fines, if paid, will be refunded.


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