SAILEN SARDAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of 24-Parganas to show cause why the conviction of the petitioners under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code should not be set aside. The petitioners were convicted for having cut off a roof upon the complainant's verandah and for having levelled the raised earth of the verandah causing a loss of about Rs. 50/- to the complainant.

(2.) The complainant Nani Lal Naskar and the petitioners had a common passage passing by the south of their houses. It was alleged that the petitioners had illegally pulled down the thatch and levelled the plinth that the complainant had erected abutting his house. The complainant asserted that he had constructed this roof and the plinth about 3 months prior to the date of occurrence.

(3.) Mr. Nalin Chandra Banerjee has in this revisional application taken up several points, namely, that this case which was triable as a summons case should not have been tried according to the procedure laid down in the trial of warrant cases. Another ground taken by Mr. Banerjee is to the effect that the learned Magistrate issued process upon the report given by a person other than the person who was asked to make a report. Finally Mr. Banerjee has urged that upon the facts of the case an offence under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code was not made out. As I think that Mr. Banerjee's last point has great substance in it. I do not think it necessary to discuss the soundness or otherwise of the other grounds taken in the revisional application before this Court.