STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. KAMLAKAR MAHADEV GITE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment and order dated 21st November 1981 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 1981 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to allow the said appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against the respondent accused by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara on 15th July 1981 in Criminal Case No. 221 of 1979. The respondent accused was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara under section 454 of I. P. C. for trespass and sentenced him to undergo RI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo one months RI. The respondent was also convicted under section 380 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo RI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo RI for one month. The respondent accused was also convicted under section 341 of I. P. C. for wrongful restraint and sentenced to suffer RI for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo RI for one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the prosecution case are as follows :-

(3.) THE accused denied the commission of the offence. According to him the complainant himself had handed over possession of the premises in question sometime in November 1977 to the accused who was the landlord of the premises. In support of his case before the trial Court the complainant had led his own evidence, regarding the tenancy rights and the possession in respect of the premises in question. The respondent-accused had also led the evidence of certain witnesses to show that after November 1977 when the complainant had handed over possession of the premises in question to the landlord accused, he had rented the said premises to two other persons, one by name Basaveshwar and subsequent to one Dr. Mane on 1st December 1977. The said Dr. Mane was examined on behalf of accused as defence witness and he had produced leave and licence agreement executed between him and the respondent-accused. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution as well as the defence gave finding that there was no evidence to show that the complainant who was tenant in respect of the premises in question had any time handed over the possession back to the respondent-accused. It was further found by the trial Court that there was no termination of the tenancy by the landlord of the complainant-tenant. It was further found that the standard rent application filed by the complainant-tenant against the respondent-landlord was also pending in the Court. Then further reliance was placed by the trial Court on the evidence of P. W. 5 Shaikh who is working in Municipality and he pointed out that on the complaint of the tenant he had visited the premises in question and he found that the premises were locked and were not occupied. He has further given evidence that the lock was not put by the Municipality. The main question which had fallen for consideration before the Court was regarding the possession in respect of the said premises. Finding that there was no proof or that there was no evidence about the complainant tenant having handed over possession of the premises in question to the landlord, the trial Court convicted the respondent-accused and sentenced him as mentioned above.