EVARISTO ANTONIO VALENTINO MIRANDA AND WIFE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Evaristo Antonio Valentino Miranda and his wife were charged by the trial court under Sections 188 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of police report. The accused felt aggrieved and so filed a revision petion in the Court of Sessions Judge at Panjim. The learned Sessions Judge reached the conclusions that there was no material before the trial court for formulating the charge under Section 188 I. P.C. that, at any rate, in view of the provisions of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code the trial court could not have taken cognizance of the charge under Section 188 I. P.C. without a complaint having been made by the competent Court, that the material before the trial court also did not justify the framing of the charge under Section 457 I. P.C. for there was nothing to show that the accused had taken precautions to conceal the criminal trespass attributed to them, and that it was at the same time difficult to accept the petitioners' contention that they had not been guilty of any offence in the nature of criminal trespass. Consequently the Sessions Judge made a reference to this Court recommending that the charges formulated by the trial court under both the sections should be quashed and the case be remanded to it for proceeding according to law.

(2.) The facts bearing on the petition may briefly be outlined Petitioner No. 1 Evaristo was a tenant of Estolano de Sa, the husband of respondent No. 2 of this petition, in respect of a house situate in Betim. The landlord filed a suit for his eviction in the Civil Court at Panjim. When Evaristo put in appearance, the trial court told him that he had necessarily to engage a counsel. Evaristo did not accept that contention as correct. In that situation the Court, it is said, proceeded ex parte against Evaristo. Since the landlord had pleaded non-payment of rent and since on behalf of Evaristo it had not been established that the alleged arrears in rent had been paid, the trial court ordered immediate eviction of Evaristo. This happened on 3-2-1965. The landlord sought execution of that order and at about 4.30 p.m. on 23-2-1965 the Bailiff went to the house in dispute and in the presence of a Court Clerk and the Regedor evicted the petitioner No 2. who alone was in the house, placed outside the household effects of the tenant, those household effects were taken charge of by by petitioner No. 2, and thereafter the possession of the house was delivered to the landlord who placed his lock on the house. At about 9.00 p m. on the same day it is alleged, the petitioners criminally trespassed into the house after breaking open the lock placed on it by the landlord. The police were notified of the development by respondent No. 2 and they registered a case. The investigations revealed, according to the findings of the police, that the offences under Ss. 188 and 457 I. P.C. had been committed and so a report to that effect was made to the Court at Panjim.

(3.) Another development which requires mention is that after the Civil Judge had refused permission to Evaristo to defend the suit without engaging a counsel, Evaristo moved a writ petition in this Court. He contended that in terms of the Indian Constitution and the other relevant laws he had the right to defend the case all by himself. At the instance of Evaristo. this court issued a stay order on 27-2-1965 in respect of the ejectment suit. The writ petition was ultimately accepted on 30th of April 1965. It was held that the order by which the Civil Judge had disallowed Evaristo to defend his case personally was illegal. The Judge was consequently directed to restore the suit to his file, to admit the written statement put in by Evaristo, to allow Evaristo to appear and plead his case personally, and to restore Evaristo to possession of the house if he had been dispossessed of the same in the meantime. Since Evaristo had already entered into possession of the house late on the evening of 23rd of February 1965, the Civil Judge had no occasion to implement the direction given by this Court in writ petition that Evaristo should be restored into possession.