RAM BALAK ALIAS GAURI SHANKER Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point which arises for determination in this revision under Sections 435 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, read with Sections 484, 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment in appeal dated February 7, 1977 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi, is whether trespass for which Ram Balak alias Gauri Shanker, petitioner, has been found guilty under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code is a criminal trespass or not.

(2.) Facts relevant for the purpose are these. Dixit Baba had been allowed to function as Pujari of Bhuteshwar Mandir, Sant Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, and was allowed to occupy a small room which formed part of the Mandir premises by Sri Sanatan Dharam Sabha (Registered), Shahdara, Delhi. In August, 1971, Dixit Baba went to Haridwar and Rishikesh after informing Jai Narain, Secretary of the said Sabha and asking him to look after the temple during his absence. As he returned in October, 1971, he found the petitioner along with his wife and children in occupation of the room. Accordingly, on October 27, 1971, he made a report to Incharge Police Post, Shahdara, alleging therein that he had gone on pilgrimage after informing the Secretary of the Sabha as usual and during his absence one Bhawani Shanker had approached the Secretary with the request to allow a religious person of repute to stay in the temple and the Secretary acceded to the request and allowed the petitioner to stay in the shed close to the room upto September 30, 1971 but the petitioner occupied the room after removing the lock instead of vacating the shed and did away with his effects which were lying inside. A case under Sections 448 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code was registered on January 3. 1972 and a charge-sheet under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code was submitted. During the trial the petitioner took up the stand that Dixit Baba left the temple in the year 1968 and he was requested to manage the temple by Bhawani Shanker and others and he agreed and since then he was in occupation of the premises without any objection from the public. The Metropolitan Magistrate found that the charge under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code had been made out notwithstanding the fact that there was delay of 27 days in the making of the first information report and that no one had stated before him about any intimidation, insult or annoyance at the time of the commission of the offence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the finding of fact as regards the occurrence and took the view that annoyance or insult to the complainant was implicit in the act of the petitioner in taking possession of the room.

(3.) Criminal trespass is defined as under :