PONNUSWAMY Vs. O.MAHIPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision raises an interesting question of law, viz., whether a person who unlawfully enters into or upon the property in the possession of another so as to be guilty of criminal trespass can be held to be guilty ofthe offence if he unlawfully continues to remains there with one of the intentions mentioned herein.

(2.) THE facts of the case are these. House -No. 8, Barbers Bridge, second lane belonged to the accused who had mortgaged it to the complainant. The bank brought the property to sale and itself purchased it in auction. Execution was taken for delivery of possession of the property. On 23 -8 -1947, bailiff came and delivered vacant possession of the property to the complainant. Subsequently on the same day the accused broke open the lock and occupied the house. A criminal complaint was laid and the accused was convicted on 14 -6 -1948 for trespass and sentenced to a fine of its. 75. The accused paid off the fine and continued to remain in possession. On 26 -6 -1948 and 27 -6 -1948, an attempt was made by the complainant to get possession but it failed as the accused prevented the complainant party from taking possession. On these facts the lower Court convicted the petitioner for house trespass, on the ground that there was a fresh cause of action on 26th and 27th June 1948 when the attempt by the owner was resisted by the accused and what was criminal at its inception does not cease to be so by successful continuance.

(3.) IN this case the accused has been convicted on 14 -6 -1948 under the first part for having unlawfully entered into or upon the property on 23 -8 -1947.