D K ASWATHA NARAYANA GUPTA Vs. JMUNEPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question which arises in this case is whether an order for restoration of possession can be made under Section 522 of the Criminal P. C. where the criminal force attending the dispossession complained of is used not against the person dispossessed but against the property in his absence.

(2.) The petitioner relies on the decision in Roda V/s. Autar Singh A.I.R. 1938 Lah. 839, as authority for his . contention that the words " criminal force " used in Section 522 of the Code are not limited to criminal force against a person but are wide enough to include criminal force against the property, such as breaking open the locks on the doors of a house, as in the present case. Skemp, J., took the view that as the definitions in Secs.349 and 350, Indian Indian Penal Code, consider force and criminal force only in their application to a person and say nothing about force as applied to a thing, the demolition of a wall or the breaking of a lock involved the use of criminal force. He held that the force used in such cases was criminal force because it involved the offence of mischief and that an order for restoration of possession based on the use of force of this kind would be competent.

(3.) On the other hand, several cases have been cited in support of the opposite view. The most recent appears to be the decision of Din Mohamed, J., in Ramchand V/s. Emperor I.L.R (1939) Lah. 513 that Section 522 contemplates only criminal force to the .person. He based his conclusion largely on the reference in the section to criminal intimidation his view being that as an inanimate object cannot be criminally intimidated, it seemed reasonable to hold that the object of the criminal force also could only be a person and not property. This view was upheld and the opinion expressed by Skemp, J., dissented from by the Bench of two Judges in Narain Singh V/s. Ramlal A.I.R. 1940 Lah, 460.