Skip to content


Lalta and ors. Vs. the State and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. No. 577 of 1953
Judge
Reported inAIR1954Cal192
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 341 and 427
AppellantLalta and ors.
RespondentThe State and anr.
Appellant AdvocateAjit Kumar Dutta and ;Promode Kumar Mukherjee, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateArun Prakash Chatterjee, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....market in connection with their convictions and sentences under sections 341 and 427 of the indian penal code.2. the facts as found by the presidency magistrate and as explained in his further explanation are that a fisher woman named sarala dasi used to occupy on payment of rent daily a particular stall in a fish market belonging to the landlord whose men the four accused persons are and who wanted to give this stall to some other person of their own choice. the learned magistrate thinks that this was to get a higher rent.3. mr. dutta has argued that as a daily toll used to be taken it is not leasing of immovable property. the contention on the finding of the learned magistrate as to the stall cannot be sustained. as the fisher woman had a right to be at that particular stall and could.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Chunder, J.

1. This is an application in revision by four accused persons who are employed in a market in connection with their convictions and sentences under Sections 341 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts as found by the Presidency Magistrate and as explained in his further explanation are that a fisher woman named Sarala Dasi used to occupy on payment of rent daily a particular stall in a fish market belonging to the landlord whose men the four accused persons are and who wanted to give this stall to some other person of their own choice. The learned Magistrate thinks that this was to get a higher rent.

3. Mr. Dutta has argued that as a daily toll used to be taken it is not leasing of immovable property. The contention on the finding of the learned Magistrate as to the stall cannot be sustained. As the fisher woman had a right to be at that particular stall and could not be thrown out of it without due process of law, preventing her from exercising her right to go to the stall was rightly considered an offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. It further appears that in order to prevent her from using the property, that is, in order to diminish the utility of the property to her, rubbish etc. were dumped by the landlord's men. The learned Magistrate in view of the definition of mischief as given in the Indian Penal Code rightly considered that this came within the offence of mischief. The sentences call for no interference.

4. The Rule is accordingly discharged.


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