SILLA RAMULU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision is directed against an order of Shri G.C. Ray, Magistrate, 1st Class, Berhampur convicting the petitioner under Section 448, I.P.C. and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 50/ - and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for ten days and further directing under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code that possession of the disputed house be delivered to the complainant. The disputed house admittedly belongs to one Api Gouduni (P.W. 1). The petitioner was a tenant in that house for about 14 years and according to the prosecution case he had vacated it about four months before the occurrence as the house required extensive repairs. The prosecution case is that after the petitioner vacated the house, the complainant almost reconstructed it and had kept certain articles belonging to her therein under lock and key. On the night of 31.7.1966 at about 2 a.m., the petitioner is alleged to have broken open the lock of the house and forcibly entered therein and to have kept his grocers articles there. The occurrence was seen by Kundana Gouduni (P.W. 2), the mother of the complainant who protested against the high -handed action of the petitioner, but as she was threatened she retired from the scene and informed her daughter about it next morning. On the morning following the occurrence, the complainant being informed about the incident by her mother came to the disputed house and questioned the petitioner about it and the petitioner also threatened to assault her. So she reported the matter to the Police who took up investigation and fearing breach of peace, kept the house under lock and key and in due course submitted charge sheet for an offence under Section 457, I.P.C.

(2.) THE petitioner denied having forcibly entered into the house on the night of occurrence. His case is that he has been a tenant in the house since about 14 years and it is he who had effected extensive repairs to the house and when he wanted that the cost of the repairs incurred by him should be adjusted towards rent due from him, a dispute arose between him and the complainant and this case was filed against him.

(3.) MR . S. Mohanty learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has not seriously assailed the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate. But he drew my attention to the following passage occurring in the concluding portion of the judgement and argued that in view of this observation, the learned Magistrate ought to have recorded an order of acquittal. This is what the learned Magistrate said :