ABDUS SALAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule was issued on a revisional application. The petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Third court. Burdwan under sections 453 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer r. I for 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to imprisonment for a further period of 15 days under section 453 of the Indian Penal Code, no separate sentence being passed under section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. While so convicting the petitioner, the learned magistrate further ordered restoration of possession of me disputed shop-rooms to the complainant opposite party. Such an order was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Burdwan, on an appeal by the petitioner. These orders are the subject matter of challenge in this Rule.

(2.) THE petitioner was prosecuted on a complaint filed by the complainant opposite party on May 19, 1969. The complainant's case shortly was that the disputed two shoprooms at premises No. 3212, B. B. Ghosh Road, tentuitola, Burdwan, belong to him. At one time, the said two room;- were let out to one Abdul Sobhan. Abdul shobhan died in Asar, 1374 B. S. and after his death his heirs and legal representatives including the petitioner gave back possession of the disputed two shoprooms on 3rd Chaitra, 1375 B. S. corresponding to March 17. 1969. According to the complainant, possession of the shoprooms having been so handed over to him he himself occupied the disputed showrooms and therein kepi certain article? of his own. The showrooms were under lock and key and taking advantage of the feet that the complainant was absent being away to his native village, the petitioner broke open the padlocks and trespassed into the said rooms. The complainant opposite party was informed of such trespass on 1st Baisakh, 1376 B. S. but since he was lying in bed suffering from chicken pox he could not take the necessary steps prior to May 19, 1969, when the complaint was lodged.

(3.) AT the trial the complainant examined himself as a witness along with 6 others. The complainant further relied on certain documentary evidence including Ext. 1, an agreement executed amongst others by the petitioner acknowledging surrender of the tenancy in favour of Abdul Sobhan and handing over possession of the disputed showrooms to the complainant opposite party.