DHANANJOY Vs. PROVAT CHANDRA BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant Dhananjoy Dhara was convicted by a Deputy Magistrate, First Class, of Krishnagar under Section 447, I. P. C, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 or, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 days. It was also ordered that out of the fine, if paid, the local Municipality through the complainant who was the Chairman of the Santipur Municipality should receive Rs. 50 as compensation. Against his conviction Dhanan Dhara appealed to the Sessions Judge of Nadia. As regards the facts of the case the learned Sessions Judge was in agreement with the Deputy Magistrate but he came to the conclusion that the conviction ought to be under Section 448, I. P. C, and not under Section 447 and he ordered accordingly; that is to say, he dismissed the appeal with the modification that the conviction was to be under Section 448 and he maintained the sentence which he considered was quite fit and proper for the ends of justice. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as follows. There is a very old ferry known as Santipur or Guptipara or Satgachi ferry serving to cross the river Bhagirathi between Guptipara on the Hoogly side of the river and Santipur on the Nadia side. In the year 1928 the management of this ferry was transferred under Government orders to the Municipality of Santipur with a direction that the income derived from such ferry should be divided between the Municipality of Santipur and the District Board of Hoogly. From that time onwards the Chairman of the Municipality of Santipur has leased out the ferry year by year to the highest bidder at public auction and in the year 1933 it was leased out at the usual auction to a man named Panchu Gopal Dhani who acquired the ferry rights for a period of one year for a sum of Rs. 1,300. This man had been in possession of the ferry by plying it for hire between the two points I have mentioned and collecting tolls from the passengers, carts and so on. He had also erected a hut on the Hoogly side of the river.

(2.) It appears that on 19 April 1933 the present applicant Dhananjoy Dhara made an attack on Panchu Gopal Dhani the lessee of the ferry, drove him away and then forcibly occupied and took possession of the ferry boat and with the help of Manjhis plied between the two sides of the river, collected tolls from persons whom ho carried across the river for a period of nine days. He even set at defiance the municipal peon who came to him for the purpose of getting possession of the moneys which Dhananjoy Dhara had collected. The reason for Dhananjoy Dhara's action, according to his version of the matter, was that his mother-in-law, a woman named Sukeshi Dasi had purchased the proprietary right in a char named Sultanpur at a revenue sale. This char 8ul-tanpur was on the Nadia side of the river and Dhananjoy Dhara claimed that in exercise of the right to the char the ferry became his on the ground that the ferry landing place or ghat on the Santipur side of the river was situated in char Sultanpur. The lessee of the ferry, Panchu Gopal Dhani, who had been treated in the manner 1 have narrated and the municipal peon lodged a complaint with the Chairman of the Santipur Municipality as a result of which the Chairman caused the present ease to be instituted. The defence set up was that the case had been concocted for the purpose of forcing the owners of the landing ghat to part with their right, title and interest therein. At the trial it was also suggested on behalf of the defence that the Nadia Court had no jurisdiction as the occurrence had really taken place on the Hooghly side of the river, that is to say at Satgachia. The learned Sessions Judge in his judgment said: The only points for determination in this appeal are whether the accused assaulted and abused the complainant, ferry man and criminally trespassed into his ferry boat with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate or insult or annoy any person in possession thereof and whether the accused did so in exercise of any bona fide claim of right to the property.

(3.) Now, with regard to the facts both the Courts came to the conclusion that they were substantially as the prosecution averred. As regards the question of jurisdiction the learned Sessions Judge said: The evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly shows that though the occurrence began at Guptipara side (that is to say at Satgachia) it culminated at Santipur side where the complainant was pushed down from the boat and the ferry boat was taken possession of by the accused who plied it, with the help of manjhis for about nine days and collected tolls etc. and he accordingly and no doubt rightly came to the conclusion that the Magistrate of Krishnagar had ample jurisdiction to try the case. With regard to the question of bona fide claim of right the learned Sessions Judge pointed out that the accused had never laid any claim to the ownership of the boat or the ferry which was an incorporeal right quite independent of and separate from the right to the soil. The learned Sessions Judge summed up his finding in these words: In these circumstances I hold that the accused criminally trespassed into the ferry boat of the complainant with intent to commit an offence to intimidate or annoy the person In possession thereof.