1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 341, Indian Penal Code. He was clearly to blame in not clearly raising in the lower Courts the defence that he was entitled to the Exception to Section 339, Indian Penal Code. He foolishly denied having erected a wail as alleged by the complainant. But at the same time he contended that the wall which had been erected was on his own land. The dispute between the parties is evidently one which can better be determined in the civil than in the criminal Court. The complainant's own case is somewhat vague, and we are not even now sure whether he claims an absolute right to the strip of land in dispute, or whether be claims a public right of way, or private right of way, for all purposes, or a mere right to go over this land, when it is necessary to do so in order to repair the south wall of his house. However that may be, we can see no reason to doubt that the obstruction put up by the petitioner was put up in good faith because the believed himself to have a lawful right to obstruct the complainant from going along this passage. There does not appear to be any suggestion that he acted from any other motive.
2. The Rule is accordingly made absolute. The conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner are set aside and the fine and costs, if paid, will be refunded.