Skip to content


N. Abdul Hadi Vs. Maju Bi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in1973CriLJ725; (1973)1MLJ13
AppellantN. Abdul Hadi
RespondentMaju Bi and ors.
Cases ReferredBerankulty Haji v. C.I. Raman
Excerpt:
- .....522, criminal procedure code, in the light of the definitions given in the indian penal code. the code of criminal procedure, does not define 'criminal force' or 'show of force.' there is nothing in it to show that when the legislature used these expressions in section 522 it intended to give them the connotation which the authors of the indian penal code had given for the purposes of that code. i think it therefore right to give these words the ordinary dictionary meaning.3. according to the chamber's twentieth century dictionary, 'force' means--' strength, power, energy, efficiency, validity, influence....'criminal', according to the said dictionary, means--'relating to crime ; guilty of crime ; violating laws'. in other words, application of criminal force means application of power.....
Judgment:
ORDER

S. Maharajan, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order of the Sub-Magistrate, Ambur, who, after convicting respondents 1 and 3 of the offence under Section 448, Indian Penal Code (house trespass) refused to allow the petitioner's application under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code for restoration of possession of the house of which he had been dispossessed by the respondents. The conviction of the respondents has been confirmed in appeal as well as in revision by me. The question arises whether, in the circumstances of the case, the learned Magistrate was right in refusing to order the victim's application for restoration of possession under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.

2. It is true that the evidence on record shows that at the time the respondents committed house trespass, the petitioner was not in actual physical possession of the house and no violence was used against the person of the petitioner. Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code, prescribes:

(1) Whenever a person is convicted of an offence attended by criminal force or show of force or by criminal intimidation and it appears to the Court that by such force or show of force or criminal intimidation any person has been dispossessed of any immovable property, the Court may, if it thinks fit, when convicting such person or at any time within one month from the date of the conviction order the person dispossessed to be restored to the possession of the same.

Can it be said that at the time the respondents committed house trespass, they ' dispossessed' the petitioner of any immovable property by employing 'criminal force or show of force or criminal intimidation.'. Section 349 of the Indian Penal Code, defines 'force ' as follows:

A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other's body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact affects that other's sense of feeling : Provided that the person causing the motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion, causes that motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion in one of the three ways hereinafter described:

Firstly: By this own bodily power.

Secondly: By disposing any sub-stance in such a manner that the motion or change or cessation of motion takes place without any further act on his part, or on the part of any other person.

Thirdly: By inducing any animal to move, to change its motion, or to cease to move.

Section 350 defines 'criminal force' and says:

Whoever intentionally uses force to any person without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.

If we adopt the Indian Penal Code, definition of' criminal force' or 'show of force ', it will be difficult to hold that when the respondents effected house trespass in the absence of the petitioner, they were guilty of employing 'criminal force' or 'show of force' or 'criminal intimidation' in the sense in which these expressions have been used in the Indian Penal Code. But I think it wrong to interpret the language of Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code, in the light of the definitions given in the Indian Penal Code. The Code of Criminal Procedure, does not define 'criminal force' or 'show of force.' There is nothing in it to show that when the Legislature used these expressions in Section 522 it intended to give them the connotation which the Authors of the Indian Penal Code had given for the purposes of that Code. I think it therefore right to give these words the ordinary dictionary meaning.

3. According to the Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary, 'force' means--' strength, power, energy, efficiency, validity, influence....

'Criminal', according to the said Dictionary, means--'relating to crime ; guilty of crime ; violating laws'. In other words, application of criminal force means application of power or strength for a purpose which is criminal in character, regardless of the fact whether it is used aginst a person or a thing.

4. According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical ples', application of criminal force mean-application of 'physical strength or power exerted upon an object; esp violence or physical coercion' (Middle English).

5. When the respondents effected trespass upon the house belonging to the petitioner in his absence they clearly committed a crime of which, as I have already said, they have been convicted ; and they committed the crime using violence, that is to say, by breaking open the door and effecting entry thereinto. As has been held by Horwill, J. in Berankulty Haji v. C.I. Raman : (1948)2MLJ257 ., the object of Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is to prevent any person gaining wrongful possession of land by his own unlawful and forcible acts ; and I see no reason why it should be interpreted in a manner favourable to the criminal.

6. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, clearly wrong in refusing to restore possession to the petitioner. His order [is set aside and the respondents are directed to restore possession of the house in question to the petitioner.


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