SAMBHU ROY Vs. MOTI KHATIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected petitions which arise out of the same incident. The petitioner was a landlord of certain premises, part of which was let to the opposite party. The opposite party made a complaint alleging that he had been prevented by force from entering the premises let to him. The petitioner was tried under Section 448, Penal Code, for house trespass. The learned Magistrate who heard the case held that a case under Section 448, Penal Code, had not been made out and acquitted the petitioner on that charge. He, however, found the petitioner guilty of a lesser offence under Section 341, Penal Code, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 60 or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week.

(2.) THE complainant thereupon applied to be put in possession of the premises, which he alleged had been let to him, under the provisions of Section 522, Criminal P.O. The learned Magistrate was satisfied that the opposite party had not been prevented by actual physical force from entering upon his premises. Nevertheless he held that he was bound by a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mohni Mohan Chowdhury v. Harendra Chandra, 31 cal. 691 :, 1 Cri.L. J. 453 (P.B.)), and made an order restoring possession to the opposite party.

(3.) IT appears to me that there is no ground whatsoever for challenging the conviction of the petitioner under Section 341, Penal Code. There was abundant evidence that the petitioner had locked the door of these premises and thus restrained the opposite party who was entitled to possession from entering thereon and enjoying possession of the same.