AVUDAYAPPA MUDALIAR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted of offences punishable under Secs.341, 447 and 504 I.P.C for having wrongfully restrained the complainant, who is an arrack renter, from going and bidding at the arrack sales held in the Sub-Magistrate's office, Sattur, and for having abused him.

(2.) The facts that the petitioner pushed and obstructed the complainant and intentionally insulted him have been found to be proved by the evidence in the judgment of the Magistrate who tried the case and the Magistrate who heard the Appeal. The facts found by them constitute the offences defined in Secs.341 and 504. The language found to have been used by the petitioner towards the complainant was such as would provoke any person of ordinary temper to commit a breach of the peace. The conviction under the Secs.must therefore stand.

(3.) The joinder of a charge of criminal trespass ( Section 447) in the circumstances of the present case was in my opinion uncalled for. The offence of criminal trespass is compoundable under Section 345, Cr. PC. by the person in possession of the property trespassed upon. There is no suggestion that the accused entered the Court compound, which is a place open to the public, with the intention, of intimidating, insulting or annoying the Sub-Magistrate, assuming that he was the person in possession. Even if it be taken for granted that when the accused entered the compound he intended to commit an offence, the prosecution has not proved that the Court compound was at the time in possession of a complainant who could compound the offence under Section 345 Cr. P.C. Vide Chandi Pershad V/s. Evans [1895] 22 Cal. 123. Moreover there was no complaint of trespass from the Sub-Magistrate. Section 447 appears to have been added in order to enhance the gravity of the other two offences.