Skip to content


In Re: Vencataramanuja Reddi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in3Ind.Cas.828
AppellantIn Re: Vencataramanuja Reddi and ors.
Cases Referred and Emperor v. Bazid
Excerpt:
penal code (act xlv of 1860), sections 411, 447 - criminal trespass, essentials of--intention to annoy. - .....v. jangi singh 26 a.n 194 and emperor v. bazid 27 a.n 2982. we, therefore, set aside the conviction and acquit the accused. the fines if paid will be.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. What the Joint Magistrate finds is that the intention of the accused was to take possession unlawfully of the land, and having found this he says that the act of the accused necessarily involved annoyance to the complainant. To bring the case under Section 447, Indian Penal Code, it must be found that the accused intended to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the complainant. The act of the accused may have caused annoyance to the complainant when he became aware of it but unless the intention of the accused was to annoy, and this is not found, they cannot be found guilty under Section 447, Indian Penal Code, tide Queen-Empress v. Rajapadayachi 19 M.j 240 Emperor v. Jangi Singh 26 A.n 194 and Emperor v. Bazid 27 A.n 298

2. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and acquit the accused. The fines if paid will be refunded.


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