1. This is an application in revision by two men, who have been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 25 each for voluntarily causing simple hurt. The Courts below have found that the complainant was building a new wall adjoining the applicants' house and that in the course of so doing he cut into a wall which the applicants claimed as their property. The learned tehsildar, who tried the case, took the trouble to go to the scene of occurrence and found that the wall was a very thick one and that it had been cut into to an extent of about six inches. In his judgment no serious injury had been done to the wall. He had no satisfactory evidence before him to satisfy him that the wall belonged to the applicants. He mentions that the complainant also claimed it. He says however the applicants could have sought the protection of the authorities and consequently even if the wall was theirs, they had no right to inflict hurt in private defence of their property.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued as though the applicants had urgent need to intervene because there was a danger of the upper storey of their house collapsing. The learned Magistrate's judgment shows that there is no force whatsoever in this argument. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has certainly not written what may be described as a proper judgment but the trial Magistrate's judgment is complete, and the Appellate Court after hearing long arguments agreed with what he said. Appellate Courts should take care to write judgments which are in consonance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code because by failing to do so they encourage persons convicted to waste their money and the time of this Court by making applications in revision. I am satisfied that there is no reason to intervene in this petty case. The application is rejected.