MANICKAMMAL Vs. T V BALASUNDARAM CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, the two petitioners ask for a revision of the appellate order of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, in C.A. No. 390 of 1979, convicting them for an offence under section 448, INdian Penal Code, and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 150 each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, and also the order directing possession of the house bearing Door No. 48, Perumal Koil Garden, V Street, Madras-1 to be restored to P.W. 1. Originally, they were tried before the Third Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras, in C.C. No. 15906 of 1978, and they were convicted for the offence under section 448, INdian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three, months each, in addition to the order under section 456, Criminal Procedure Code, directing possession of the house in question to P.W. 1.

(2.) THE case against the petitioners in a nut shell is as follows:

(3.) WHEN the petitioners were examined with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence, the first petitioner stated that the house bearing Door No. 48, Perumal Koil Garden, V Street, Madras, belonged to her husband, that it was built by him, that it was never taken on tenancy from anybody and that they were not in arrears of rent to any person. She denied that, on 2nd November, 1978, they were evicted from the house of the bailiff with the aid of the police and that possession was handed over to P.W. 1, the complainant. The second petitioner.s statement was also in the same terms as of the first petitioner. They examined one witness on their behalf. D.W. 1 was once a Labour Union leader, who knew the petitioners for the last thirty-five years. He was a tenant in the house of the petitioners and the house belonged to the husband of the first petitioner. He, was a man of the locality and if there was any trouble he used to settle the matter. If the bailiff, as alleged by the prosecution, had evicted the petitioners from the house, they would have reported the matter to him. The petitioners continued to reside in the same house.