SHEWARAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shewaram and two others have come up in revision from the order of the appellate Court below dismissing the appeal from the order of the trial Court convicting two of them under Ss. 332/149 and 342, Penal Code, and one of them under S. 332/149, Penal Code, and sentencing them each in the aggregate to undergo one year's R. I.

(2.) The findings of the two Courts below are clearly to the effect that on a certain information lodged in writing by the complainant as well as two of the accused-applicants S. I. Dhanrajmal proceeded to the house said to be in the joint possession of the complainant, two of the accused-applicants and some others, and went up with the express consent of the two parties. When he was coming out of the house he was pounced upon by the accused-applicants and some others. He was thereafter given a thorough beating, his uniform was completely torn off and he was rendered naked. He was then confined in a room.

(3.) The only point pressed on behalf of the accused-applicants is that the police-officer had no authority to enter the house as he had at the time neither a warrant of arrest nor a search-warrant and was not investigating any cognizable offence and that, as such, the accused applicants committed no offence in handling him in the way that they did. I am afraid the contention carries no weight whatsoever. It appears that two cross-reports had been lodged in writing at the P. S, and that each of the reports apprehended a breach of the peace from the other party. It may thus safely be inferred that the police-officer was perfectly justified in holding that there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace at least from one of the parties. The police-officer accordingly was perfectly justified in proceeding to the house said to be in joint possession of the two parties and some others.