PRAFULLA NALINI GHOSE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is directed against an order passed by a learned Magistrate, 1st class, Sealdah, on 27 -10 -1951, convicting the two petitioners under Sections 453 and 341, I. P. C., and sentencing each to a flue of Rs. 30/ - in default to S. I. for 15 days under Section 453, I. P. C., and directing also restoration of possession under Sections 522, Criminal P. C. there being, however, no separate sentence passed under Section 341, I. P. C.

(2.) A motion for reference of the case to this Court was eventually rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 21 -1 -1952 and thereafter on 28 -1 -1952 the present Rule was obtained by the two accused.

(3.) IN my opinion, the petitioner's conviction cannot stand. I am not impressed by the argument of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that, even if the prosecution evidence be fully believed, this was at best a case of civil trespass and no conviction could be made for any criminal offence as the petitioners' dominant intent was not 'to insult, intimidate or annoy'. The case of - - 'Sinnaswamy Sal -vanayagarn v. The King', 55 Cal WN 1 (PC) (A), cited by the petitioners' learned Advocate in support of this argument, would Be of no help to the petitioners if the prosecution story be accepted as correct. I am bound, therefore, to reject this argument, advanced in support of the Rule.