KANHAIYALAL Vs. FELIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference raises a shot; question which may be stated as follows. Can a person against whom charge is framed under sections 426 and 370, I. P. C. be convicted under Section 447, I. P. C?

(2.) FELIRANI filed a complaint against Kanhaiyalal stating that on 10. 2. 1949 the accused dismantled the hut of the complainant and took possession of the material and that he was. laying a foundation of a new house. The learned sub-divisional Magistrate Pohari framed a charge under Sections 426 and 379, I. P. C. He, however, acquitted him of both the offences under Sections 426 and 379. I. P. C. and holding. that his act amounts to trespass, convicted him under Section 447, I. P. C. and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 50/ -. The accused filed a petition in revision before the Sessions Judge who has made this reference under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) MR. Inamdar, who appeared on behalf of the complainant, contended that the facts mentioned in the charge were that the accused dismantled the hut with intent to cause wrongful joss to the complainant rind took possession of the material without obtaining complainant's permission. These facts also go to constitute in offence under Section 441, I. P. C. hence under Section 233, Criminal Procedure Code, conviction of the accused under Section 441 cannot be said to be bad.