LALMOHAN SINGH Vs. KING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for revision of an order of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate convicting the petitioner of an offence under Section 500, Penal Code, and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 200 and in default of payment of the fine, to simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) THE charge arose out of a letter which the petitioner wrote to the Editor of the Newspaper Swaraj, for the purpose of publication. To understand the allegations in the letter it will be necessary shortly to set out the facts of the case.

(3.) THE complainant was the owner of a certain premises No. 24, Hyat Khan Lane, Calcutta. It appears that one Amar Guha had somehow obtained possession of part of these premises, but it is common ground that later he was treated as a tenant. Amar Guha was an evacuee from East Bengal. Later, one Sitanath with the assistance of Amar Guha came into these premises and took possession of part of them, but it is clear from the findings of the learned Magistrate that the complainant never recognised Sitanath as a tenant. Eventually Sitanath and Amar Guha fell out and an incident took place in these premises which gave rise to the letter to which I have referred. It seems that in the absence of Sitanath, Amar Guha with a number of other persons tried to occupy by force the part of the premises occupied by Sitanath and that they manhandled Sitanath's wife and daughter and caused considerable damage to movable property of Sitanath.