BALAI CHANDRA NANDY Vs. DURGA CHARAN BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order of acquittal passed in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1979 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 13th Court, Alipore. That appeal was preferred by the accused Durga Charan against the order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the Judicial Magistrate under Ss. 454 and 427 I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge upholding the findings of the learned Magistrate that the accused committed mischief by breaking open the door and throwing out the articles from the room in the possession of the complainant after entering therein, convicted the accused under S.426 I.P.C. instead of S. 427 I.P.C. as done by the learned Magistrate, because he held that there was no evidence as to the extent of loss suffered by the complainant.

(2.) With regard to the charge under S. 454 I.P.C., the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused on two grounds :

(3.) These findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge are perverse. The learned Additional Sessions Judge himself found that it was "proved beyond doubt that the accused together with some others actually came in front of the complainant's godown in the early morning on 13-7-1976 and broke open the door of the godown with force, entered the godown and threw out the articles from the godown on the road." Thus the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge borne out by the evidence clearly show that according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge also lurking house trespass was in fact committed by the accused-respondent. It is strange that the learned Additional Sessions Judge could devote a few pages on the question of intention which was totally irrelevant for the purpose of this case. S. 454 which is quoted below shows that intention is totally irrelevant in this case :