- (1.)This is a revision application which has traversed several decades in our Criminal Justice system. Since about 1970, 40 years ago Civil Proceedings were followed, prosecuted and adjudicated upon between the original complainant and the original accused. The original complainant and the original accused having expired, their respective heirs and legal representatives are brought on record. They shall all be referred to as complainant and accused respectively. The original complainant under C.C. No. 153/1982 was the owner and landlord of House No. 1700, R.S. Kedari Road, Poona 1. 2 rooms on the first floor were tenanted to one Esa Hussain Fidhali.
(2.)The complainant obtained a decree in his litigation with his original tenant. He filed Execution Proceedings being Darkhast No. 1582/ 1975. After several hearings an order for breaking open the locks with police protection came to be granted. The complainant sought to execute that decree under those execution proceedings as per that order. He attended the property for which he had obtained the decree with the Court Bailiff, panchas and the police on 17th April, 1982. He obtained vacant possession. He affixed his locks on the door. Hence, 12 years after the initial litigation, he obtained its fruits. Alas, this remained with him for only about a week. The original accused broke open the locks of the complainant and got in possession. On 25th April, 1982 the complainant was abused and threatened and prevented from being in possession. Consequently the original complainant was frustrated in his efforts to secure possession by authority of law on account of the possession being obtained by the original accused. A complaint came to be filed for offences punishable under sections 448, 451, 454, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C.
(3.)In the trial Court the Complainant's daughter examined herself as P.W. 1. She deposed that on 17th April, 1982 her father took possession as given by the Small Causes Court under the Darkhast/ Execution application. She was present. The house was locked by putting up 3 locks. The articles of the tenant were put outside the house. In her cross-examination she has deposed that the work of the Bailiff of giving possession went on till 10.40 a.m. The accused was present. Her further cross-examination shows that the accused was present since 9.00 a.m. The Bailiff started the work of taking/giving possession at 9.20 a.m. which continued till 10.40 a.m. She has refuted the suggestion that there was any stay of order of any Court passed in Civil Suit No. 1251/1981 pending between the accused and the complainant. She has refuted the suggestion that the accused has obtained any stay pending taking/giving up possession or that the Bailiff did not accept the same. Her cross-examination does not show at what precise time the stay order was shown to her by the accused or the Bailiff. Consequently, the details of what transpired for taking/giving possession has not been disrupted in her cross-examination.