RAMAKANT RAJARAMA PAINGUINKAR Vs. MANUEL FERNANDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 522(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The material facts leading to this application are that by an order dated 28th June, 1967, the respondent-accused was convicted under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, by the learned Magistrate, Margao, and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, or in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The respondent-accused preferred a revision in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed this revision petition holding that the offence under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code had been proved. The respondent-accused then filed second revision petition in this Court, which was rejected by order dated 10th June, 1968. It was after that order that the applicant moved this Court for restoration of possession of the house in question under Section 522(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As will appear from the concurrent findings of the two Courts below and also the conclusion of this Court, the house in question was purchased by the applicant. The respondent-accused placed a lock over the lock placed by the applicant and after removing the latch from the rear portion of this house he entered therein, apparently with the intention of causing annoyance to the applicant. Mr. Ramanim, learned Counsel for the applicant is asked to satisfy this Court whether the application filed under Section 522(1) is maintainable. This section states that whenever a person is convicted of an offence attended by criminal force or show of force, or by criminal intimidation, and it appears to the Court that by such force, or show of force, or criminal intimidation, any person has been dispossessed of any immovable property, the Court may, if it thinks fit when convicting the person, order at any time within one month from the date of conviction, the person dispossessed to be restored to the possession of the same. This provision contemplates an offence attended by criminal force, or show of force, or by criminal intimidation. What is "force" is defined in Section 349 Of the Indian Penal Code. "Criminal force" is defined in Section 350 of the Indian Penal Code. It is an admitted fact that the applicant was not in the house when the respondent-accused removed the latch and entered therein. The applicant, according to Mr. Ramanim, was not living in the house when the respondent-accused entered therein. The only force that is contemplated by Sections 349 and 350 is the force as applied to a human-being. It was not the case of the applicant at any stage that he was in physical possession of the house and thereafter he had been dispossessed by criminal force. There is an authority for the proposition that where a complainant is dispossessed of his garden by breaking open a padlock of its gate but no force or violence is used to any person an order of restoration cannot be passed : Bisweswar Singh V/s. Bhola Nath,1914 AIR(Cal) 629 The section would have been attracted if the applicant, present in the house, had been dispossessed by use of criminal force, or show of force. The section confers on the criminal Court a summary powder to restore the state of things which existed at the time of dispossession by the convicted person. This jurisdiction is of a quasi-civil nature and is exercised on grounds of public policy and general convenience. The essential requirements of the section are not satisfied in this case, apart from the fact that the application under Section 522(1) is a belated one. As it is, the application is devoid of substance and is accordingly rejected in limine.