Skip to content


Pottivadu and anr. Vs. Veerayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1902)12MLJ447
AppellantPottivadu and anr.
RespondentVeerayya
Cases ReferredRam Chandra Boral v. Jityandria I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....in this case the petitioners were convicted of an offence under section 447 of the indian penal code (criminal trespass) and an order was subsequently made which purported to be under section 522 of the code of criminal procedure. the question is, was this order under section 522 a legal order or is it bed as having been made without jurisdiction. the conditions precedent that must exist before an order can be made under section 522 are (1) some person must have been convicted of an offence attended by criminal force and (2) some person must have been dispossessed of immoveable property by such force.2. it is clear that the use of criminal force is not a necessary ingredient of an offence under sectopm 447 of the indian penal code. the calcutta high court have held1 that 'an offence.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Charles Arnold White, C.J.

1. In this case the petitioners were convicted of an offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code (criminal trespass) and an order was subsequently made which purported to be under Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question is, was this order under Section 522 a legal order or is it bed as having been made without jurisdiction. The conditions precedent that must exist before an order can be made under Section 522 are (1) some person must have been convicted of an offence attended by criminal force and (2) some person must have been dispossessed of immoveable property by such force.

2. It is clear that the use of criminal force is not a necessary ingredient of an offence under Sectopm 447 of the Indian Penal Code. The Calcutta High Court have held1 that 'an offence attended by criminal force' means an offence of which criminal force is an ingredient Ram Chandra Boral v. Jityandria I.L.R. 25 C. 434. I am inclined to think that this is too narrow a construction to place on the very general words 'attended by criminal force.' In the present case, however, there is no finding by the court which convicted the petitioners that any criminal force was in fact used by the petitioners or that the complainant was dispossessed of the land by such force. This being so, and criminal force not being an ingredient of the offence for which the petitioners were convicted, I think the order which purported to be made under Section 522 of the Cr.P.C., was made without jurisdiction and must be set aside. Ordered accordingly.

3. I order that petitioners be restored to possession.


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