ARJUNO GOUDO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners stand convicted under Section 427, I. P. C. and have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each in default to undergo R. I. for 3 months.

(2.) THE facts found to have been proved in the case are that the complainant having encroached upon a piece of Government land, was in cultivating possession of the same for a few vears, and in the year in question had grown Biri and paddy crops thereon, which the petitioners damaged by driving and allowing their cattle to graze on the same. In the trial the petitioners simply denied the entire occurrence.

(3.) THE main Question raised by Mr. Murty, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that on the facts proved no 'wrongful loss' as defined in Section 23, I. P. C. was caused to the complainant as he was in unauthorised occupation of the disputed land, and as such the petitioners' act would not amount to an offence of 'mischief' as defined in Section 425, I. P. C. In support of his above contention Mr. Murty cited the decision in AIR 1948 Mad 473, which is based mainly on the definition of the term 'wrongful loss' as "the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled". The conviction under Section 427, I. P. C. in the said case was set aside on the finding that P. W. 6 was not legally entitled either to the land or to the crop standing on it as he had no permission to cultivate the land or to raise any crop thereon. Section 425 speaks of 'wrongful loss' or 'damage' to the public or to any person. In the aforesaid decision the term 'wrongful loss' only was taken into consideration, without considering the significance of the specific use of the word 'damage' in the said section. In my view, the express mention of this word 'damage' which is not limited in its scope by a definition, is not superfluous and/or redundant, and is indicative of the fact that the purview of the offence of 'mischief' is not intended to be confined only to cases of 'wrongful loss', but also to engulf within it all such cases of damages by unlawful means as in this case. Moreover, the first explanation to Section 425. I. P. C. , in my opinion, is also applicable to a case like this.