P RAGHUNATHA SHENOY Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by the accused in CC. No. 132 of 1972 on the file of the JMFC. Mangalore. By the said judgment, the Magistrate had convicted the accused on a charge under S.94 of the Mysore Police Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.20.

(2.) The charge is that on 26-12-1971 at about 1-20 p.m. the accused wilfully entered the premises in the possession of PW.1 and his father. On behalf of the prosecution three witnesses have been examined, PW.1 is none other than the brother of the petitioner. It is in evidence that the has been staying with his parents and that the petitioner was staying separately from them. It is also averred that his father had objected to the visit of the petitioner. On the day in question, the petitioner is said to have entered the premises in the occupation of PW.1 and his parents. At that time he had a wooden reaper in his hand and was proclaiming that none should enter the house. PW.2 is a servant of PW.1. He has also spoken to the fact of the entry by the petitioner in the manner stated by PW.1. PW.3 is a Head Constable, who also corroborates these two witnesses. The only discrepancy nf any significance between their versions is with regard to the portion entered upon by the petitioner. FW.1 has stated that when the police came the petitioner was moving about in front of the house. PW.2 has started that he was moving about inside the compound. PW.3 has stated that he was in the dwelling house. If one remembers that the house had a compound, and "there was some open space between the dwelling house proper and the compound, this discrepancy would not be of any materiality.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that having regard to the provisions of Sec.94 of the Police Act, which speaks of 'dwelling house' this discrepancy would indicate that the witnesses were not at all sure as to where the petitioner was in the context of such entry. The word 'dwelling house' used in this section would, in my opinion, take within 'its ambit the entire premises including the house proper and the land appurtenant to it. Some argument was addressed as regards the wilful nature or otherwise of such entry by the petitioner. The contention of Smt. Anasuya, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner had every right to visit his father who was the owner of the house. This argument would have had some substance had it not been for the fact that the petitioner was armed with a wooden club such as the reaper and has been proclaiming in so many words that he would not permit any one to enter the house. Clearly therefore, the entry by 'the petitioner was witful falling within the ambit of Section 94 of the Police Act. But the point urged by Smt. Anasuya, bearing on the question of compliance with the provisions of S.342 CrPC seems to me to be well founded.