ANANTARAM PATNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is preferred against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Puri, dated 2.8.1983, in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1983, confirming the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puri in G.R. Case No. 248 of 1979, convicting the Petitioner under Section 448 I.P.C. end sentencing him thereunder to pay a fine of Rs. 750/ -. In default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, and directing that from out of the fine amount, if realised, a sum of Rs. 500/ - should be paid to the informant (P.W. 2) as compensation and further directing the delivery of the vacant house to the informant under Section 456, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) FROM the material placed on record and the recitals in Ext. A, the prosecution has conclusively established that, in execution of the decree passed by the House -Rent Controller in H.R.C. Case No. 19 of 1978, there was symbolic delivery of possession of the house in question to the decree -holder (informant) on 8.10.1978 in the presence of the accused judgment debtor. The admitted position is that in spite of such delivery of possession of the house to the decree -holder on 8.10.1978, the accused -judgment -debtor continued to be in possession of the house in question. So the point for decision in this revision is whether the Petitioner has rendered himself liable under Section 448, I.P.C. by continuing to remain in possession of the house even after it was symbolically delivered to the informant and in spite of his demand to vacate It.

(3.) FOR convenience of ready reference the provisions of Section 441, I.P.C. are quoted below: