MOTILAL Vs. EMPEROR THROUGH KANHAIYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Moti Lal has applied in revision to this Court against his conviction and sentence by a first; class Magistrate the conviction and sentence were upheld by the learned Sessions Judge of Cawnpore on appeal. Moti Lal was convicted of the offence under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, and the contention of his learned Counsel is that on the facts found by the Courts below, the conviction cannot be supported. The facts are briefly these : One Mt. Basanti was in possession of her husband's property which consisted inter alia, of some shops. On the death of the lady, there were two claimants to the property-one Kanhaiya Lal, a cousin of her late husband, and the other the applicant before this Court. He claimed to be an adopted son. The property immediately in question was a shop which was in the occupancy of a tenant, Yusuf. Both Kanhaiya Lal and Moti Lal appeared as witnesses in support of Yusuf's defence. The defence failed and Kanhaiya Lal got a decree. Subsequently there was another suit for rent by Kanhaiya Lal which was again successful. Yusuf, thereafter gave a notice to Kanhaiya Lal of his intention to vacate the premises and eventually left them on the 2nd of October, 1924. The same day, and before Kanhaiya Lal had been able to take possession of the shop Moti Lal occupied it and locked it up. On these facts the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge were of opinion that an offence under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code had been committed. The learned Sessions Judge, from certain other circumstances, namely, that Moti Lal was trying to induce the tenants to pay rent to him by offering to accept one-half of the ordinary rent, and the fact that Moti Lal did not attempt to obtain a declaration from the Court that he was an adopted son of the deceased, came to the conclusion that Moti Lal's object in locking up the shop "must obviously have been to annoy Kanhaiya Lal, the rightful owner."

(2.) In this Court the learned Counsel for Moti Lal has urged two points : (1) That the house was not in the possession of Kanhaiya Lal within the meaning of Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code, and (2) that the intention of Moti Lal was only to assert his own title and right to possession and that it was not his indention to annoy Kanhaiya Lal.

(3.) If, therefore, the applicant is right on either of these points, ha is entitled to have the conviction set aside. Section 441, as far as material, is as follows : "Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence, or to intimidate, insult or annoy any parson in possession of such...property is said to commit criminal trespass."