STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. PARAS RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has, by this appeal, challenged the judgement of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class (II), Shimla, whereby in case No. 109/2 of 1983 the accused has been acquitted.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the police received a complaint on 4-6-1983 from the complainant Shri Sohan Lal alleging therein that the quarter in his occupation near Tashkent Hotel, Shimla, in the tenancy of his brothers, Shri Ram Krishan and Shri Som Nath, was illegally occupied by the accused after breaking open the lock. His brothers were out of India and so he was in occupation of the premises. He further states that he came to know of this incident on the basis of a telegram dated May 31, 1983 sent to him by Shri Shambhu Nath stating therein that Shri Paras Ram and Shri Budhi Ram had broken the lock of the premises, taken away the belongings and goods and put up their own lock. On reaching Shimla, these facts were found correct. As a result, a complaint Ex. P.W. 1/A was filed and F.I.R. Ex. P.W. 1/B was registered.

(3.) It is also alleged in the complaint that his brothers had been reading in the preemies as tenants for the last 13-14 years and the complainant was also residing with them since then. They were paying rent for the premises to the owner of the house as well as to the Tehsildar, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, for the years 1972, 1979 and 1980. The receipts were exhibited during the trial. It is also stated that the accused Paras Ram got a sale deed executed from the owner of the house for two rooms in the lower storey on 28-5-1983, the day he went to his village in Hoshiarpur District. It was during this absence of the complainant that the accused took possession of the premises forcibly thereby committing an offence under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the accusations and further stated that the premises in question had, in fact, been purchased by his father and the same were vacant the day the possession of the same was taken. The accused produced Shri Hiru Ram, his father, in defence.