Skip to content


Amavasaya Chinna Krishna Reddy and ors. Vs. Marri Poliah of Chilamanur - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in15Ind.Cas.317
AppellantAmavasaya Chinna Krishna Reddy and ors.
RespondentMarri Poliah of Chilamanur
Excerpt:
penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 447 - entry in order to assert a right on land--criminal trespass--intention to intimidate, etc., must be found. - securitisation & reconstruction of financial assets & enforcement of security interest act, 2002 [c.a. no. 54/2002]section 17; power of tribunal to impose condition relating to deposit for grant of stay of auction held, there is no specific provision made under section 17 of securitisation act or under any other provisions of the said act empowering the tribunal to pass any interim order. but under sub-section (12) of section 19 of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993, the tribunal has been empowered to pass various interim orders. if sub-section (7) of section 17 of securitisation act is read along.....orderabdur rahim, j.1. the conviction udder section 447, indian penal code, cannot be sustained. none of the magistrates find that the intention of the accused in entering upon the land in dispute was to intimidate, annoy or insult the prosecution witness no. 1 or to commit any offence. the only inference to be drawn from the facts, as disclosed in the evidence, is that the accused entered the land in order to assert the right which they claimed in the land, but that is not sufficient to bring the conduct within the definition of criminal trespass as given in section 441, indian penal code. i set aside the convictions of all the accused under section 447 and also the sentences against the accused nos. 1 to 4. the fines, if paid, by the accused nos. 1 to 4 will be refunded to them. the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Abdur Rahim, J.

1. The conviction udder Section 447, Indian Penal Code, cannot be sustained. None of the Magistrates find that the intention of the accused in entering upon the land in dispute was to intimidate, annoy or insult the Prosecution witness No. 1 or to commit any offence. The only inference to be drawn from the facts, as disclosed in the evidence, is that the accused entered the land in order to assert the right which they claimed in the land, but that is not sufficient to bring the conduct within the definition of criminal trespass as given in Section 441, Indian Penal Code. I set aside the convictions of all the accused under Section 447 and also the sentences against the accused Nos. 1 to 4. The fines, if paid, by the accused Nos. 1 to 4 will be refunded to them. The conviction of the fifth accused under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, is supported by evidence and will stand. But as he has been sentenced by the Joint Magistrate under Sections 323 and 447, Indian Penal Code, to a fine of Rs. 15, 1 reduce the fine against the fifth accused to Rs. 12.


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