JAGDISH REWANI Vs. RAJENDRA NATH SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Jagdish Rewani, is alleged to have broken, 911 the night of the 10th. 11th November, 1960, four locks put upon the doers of two rooms in the possession of the opposite party, Rajendra Math Sarkar, and to have taken possession of them On these facts, the petitioner was convicted by a first-class Magistrate of Jamtara for an offence under Section 456 of the Penal Code, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs 100/-or, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month An appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed. The petitioner then filed the present criminal revision in this Court, and, by my order dated the 13th February, 1964, I dismissed the application with some modification in the sentence The opposite party has now filed the present application under Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for restoration of his possession of the rooms

(2.) Section 522 (1) reads:

(3.) The prosecution ease was that the accused broke open the locks, put upon the doors of the rooms at night in the absence of the complainant. Rajendra Nath Sarkar. It is also the prosecution case that Sarkar went to the place next morning, found Jagdish Rewani and his associates occupying the rooms and asked Jagdish Rewani who took a defiant attitude and referred' him to Court, Mrs. Seth's argument is that, though there may not have been any show of force at the time of breaking of the locks, there was a show of farce at the time when Sarkar went to the place in the morning of the 11th November, 1960 She has relied in this connection upon two decisions The first decision is that in the case of Mahabir v. rEX, AIR 1949 All 228. In that case, the accused persons started forcibly ploughing the disputed plots, and, when the complainant went, protested and tried to stop the accused from ploughing the field, they did not listen to him On these facts, they were convicted under Section 447 but were acquitted of the charge under S. 352 of the Penal Cede. Tbe question which arose for consideration was whether an order under Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was justified in the facts and circumstances of that case Wanchoo, J.. who delivered the judgment of the Bench, observed:-