1. The concurrent findings of fact of two Courts are that the petitioner, knowing that he had no manner of title to a certain house, went to that house and with the assistance of a number of friends who were accused in the first Court but have been subsequently acquitted, turned out P.W. 1 and the tenant of the house (P.W. 3) and locked the house. The first accused (Petitioner) was originally charged under Sections 147 and 448, read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, but on appeal he was convicted under Section 448. The question is whether the petitioner has been properly convicted.
2. The principal question is whether there was any criminal trespass at all, in that the intention of the accused was to set up a title to the house and not to intimidate, insult, or annoy any person in possession. Vullappa v. Bheema Row : AIR1918Mad36(2) , makes it clear that a mere knowledge that he will annoy the owner of the house is not sufficient. That was a case in which the persons who entered the house did so because they thought it probable that there were some jewels belonging to them inside the house. In the present case, it is probably true that the dominant intention of the first accused was to set up civil title to the house to which he had no lawful claim; but I think that the accused had the subsidiary and subordinate intention of intimidating or annoying P.W.3. She would presumably not have left the house by mere persuasion; and so the. petitioner took there with him a number of persons. The effect was to intimidate her; and I have no doubt that the accused went there with the intention of intimidating P.W.I and P.W. 3 and forcing them to leave the house.
3. Another objection is that the accused has been charged with trespass constructively; for the charge suggests that he did not enter the house himself but sent in the other accused. However there is a finding that he sat on the pial of the house, which would be a trespass, and the conviction cannot be set aside on this ground unless the accused has been prejudiced by it. I feel sure that in this case he has not been.
4. Finally, it is said that the offence committed by the accused was one of simple trespass and not house-trespass, in that he did not enter inside the house. Whether there is anything in this point or not, I do not consider the error to be a sufficient cause for interfering in revision with a small fine.
5. The petition is dismissed.