ALAKAL SENAPPA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the accused in C. C. 30 of 1957 on the file of the sub Divisional Magistrate of Hospet. Petitioners 1 to 5 have been convicted of an offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25; all the six petitioners have also been convicted of an offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. The convictions and sentences have also been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Bellary on appeal by the petitioners.

(2.) The complainant, who is the 2nd respondent before me, was a tenant under one Raghavendrachar, who is D. W. 1 in the case. It is the complainant's case that he has been in possession for a number of years as tenant under Raghavendrachar. On 20-2-1957 Raghavendrachar executed a sale deed in favour of the 1st petitioner in respect of the land under the occupation of the complainant. On 22-2-1957, that is two days after the sale, the incident complained of took place in respect of which the accused have been convicted and sentenced as above. In their defence against the case of trespass, the case of the accused was that immediately after the sale deed on 20th February itself the 1st accused and his vendor Raghavendrachar went to the land and the complainant voluntarily surrendered possession. This plea has been rejected by both the Courts and the accused have been convicted of the offence of trespass under section 447 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of hurt has been accepted by both the courts, but only the 6th accused has been acquitted for lack of evidence. There is also a finding that the complainant's case that the 1st accused stamped on his foot with his chappals and the complainant's foot was injured thereby is false; the doctor's evidence is that the would or injury on the foot of the complainant appeared to have been self-inflicted.

(3.) In the trial court an application appears to have been made by the complainant for a direction for restoration of possession to the complainant under the provisions of Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This application was not disposed of and it is the complainant's case that the reason why it was not so disposed of is that the accused went up on appeal soon after their conviction by the Magistrate and therefore the Magistrate did not proceed to deal with the application. The learned Sessions Judge while confirming the conviction has made such a direction and ordered that the possession of the land in question should be restored to the complainant on the finding that he had been dispossessed by force by the 1st accused.