Skip to content


Bhikam Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor Through Gobind Ram - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1918All374(2); 42Ind.Cas.1006
AppellantBhikam Singh and ors.
RespondentEmperor Through Gobind Ram
Excerpt:
penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 448 - criminal trespass--execution--decree-holder attaching property of judgment-debtor in third person's house--offence. - .....bring out the cattle and they did so. the cattle were apparently in the house of the complainant gobind singh. it has not been found that the cattle did not belong to bhara. on the contrary i am informed that a civil court has held that they did belong to bhara and had been properly attached as his property. anyhow it not having been proved that the cattle belonged to gobind singh, the decree-holder and his supporters were justified in having the cattle seized. it cannot be said that in taking the cattle out of the complainant's house where they had been kept, the applicants were guilty of criminal trespass. the conviction under that section cannot, in my opinion, be supported. the result is that i set aside the conviction under that section, acquit the applicants of an offence under.....
Judgment:

1. The applicants have been convicted under Sections 323 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the conviction under Section 323 is concerned, it cannot upon the findings be questioned in this case and it must be maintained.: As regards the conviction under Section 448 I do not think that the applicants were guilty of criminal trespass. Phul Singh and Lai Singh obtained a decree against one Bhara from the Court of Small Causes. This decree they transferred to Bhikam Singh. Process was taken but for execution of the decree and some, cattle were to be attached as the property of Bhara. The applicants went with the Civil Court amin for the purpose of attaching the cattle. They were asked by the amin to bring out the cattle and they did so. The cattle were apparently in the house of the complainant Gobind Singh. It has not been found that the cattle did not belong to Bhara. On the contrary I am informed that a Civil Court has held that they did belong to Bhara and had been properly attached as his property. Anyhow it not having been proved that the cattle belonged to Gobind Singh, the decree-holder and his supporters were justified in having the cattle seized. It cannot be said that in taking the cattle out of the complainant's house where they had been kept, the applicants were guilty of criminal trespass. The conviction under that section cannot, in my opinion, be supported. The result is that I set aside the conviction under that section, acquit the applicants of an offence under that section and direct that their bail bond be cancelled. The conviction under Section 323 and the sentence passed under that section are maintained.


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