R.B.MEHTA - (1.) This revision application has been filed by the five petitioners who were charged before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Sixth Court Ahmedabad for offences under secs. 341 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were convicted under sec. 341 and sec. 504 I.P.C. and accused No. 5 was convicted under secs. 341 and 504 read with sec. 114 I.P.C. Accused No. 1 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 in default to suffer S. I. for 7 days; accused Nos. 2 3 and 4 were each sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25.00 in default to suffer S. I. for 5 days for the offence under sec. 341 I. P. C. and accused No. 5 was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25.00 in default to suffer S. I. for 5 days under sec. 341 read with sec. 114 I. P.C. No seperate sentences were passed against any of the accused under sec. 504 I. P. C. The learned Magistrate also passed an order under sec. 522(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code against accused No I to hand over the possession of the premises in dispute to the complainant Ramnandan Ramharakh. Against this order of conviction and sentence as well as the order under sec. 522(1) Gr. P.C. there was a revision application before the learned Sessions Judge Ahmedabad who confirmed both the orders of conviction and sentence as well as the order under sec. 522(1) Cr. P C. and dismissed the revision application. It is against this order of the learned Sessions Judge that the present revision application has been filed.
(2.) In this revision application so far as the question of conviction and sentence is concerned the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. D. K. Shah has not pressed this question before this Court as the same is a pure question of fact and depends on the appreciation of evidence. The conviction and sentence on the petitioners will therefore stand. Mr. Shah has strongly contended that the order passed by the learned Magistrate under sec. 522(1) is incorrect illegal and erroneous and not justified on the facts of this case and that therefore it should be set aside.
(3.) The brief facts leading to this dispute are as follows: The complainant Ramnandan Ramharakh who is a mill hand was residing as a tenant in a room in Dr. Manubhais Chawl since more than 15 years. He was serving in Anant Mills. The complainant took leave of absence from the Anant Mills to go to his native place and he and his family members left for their native place on the 16 May 1959. The complainat had taken leave of absense for the period beginning from 16th May 1959 to 17th June 1959. Later on however he extended his leave up to 31st July 1959. Before the complainant left for his native place he gave leave and licence to the petitioner No. 1 at the request of the petitioner No. 1 to occupy his premises. This leave and licence was given either on the 15th or 16th of May 1959 but nothing turns on the exact date of giving this leave and licence. After the complainant left petitioner No. 1 along with petitioner Nos. 2 3 and 4 occupied the premises in question. Petitioner No. 2 is the wife of petitioner No. 1 and petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 are the brothers of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 5 is the maternal uncle of petitioner No. 1 and he has been joined as a co-acccused as it was alleged that he was a party to the wrongful restraint caused to the complainant. The complainant returned to Ahmedabad from his leave in August 1959 and at that time petitioners 1 2 3 and 4 were naturally found in occupation of his room as a result of the leave and licence granted by the complainant the complainant after his return asked for the possession of the room from the petitioners. It appears that the petitioners declined to give possession and set up a case of sub-tenancy. This dispute was referred by the complainant to the caste Panchayat of the complainant and the petitioners in January 1960 The decision of the Panchayat which was given on 12th January 1960 was to the effect that the first petitioner should hand over premises in question to the complainant within 15 days from the 12th January 1960 This decision of the Panchayat was accepted by the complainant. At the end of 15 days the complainant went to take possession from the first two petitioners. The first petitioner however refused to vacate and he intimidated and threatened the complainant that he would not vacate as he was there in his right of sub-tenancy. On intimidation and threats given by the first petitioner the complainant left the first petitioner. Thereafter again on 12th February 1960 the complainant went to the first petitioner and asked for possession of the room in question. At this time the complainant was actually accompanied by two members of the Panchayat on the complainant asking for possession the petitioner caused wrongful restraint to the complainant from entering the room and refused to hand over possession of the room to the complainant. On the next day i. e. on 13th February 1960 the complainant filed the present complaint as a result of which the five petitioners were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above and the learned Magistrate also passed an order under sec. 522(1) Cr. P. C. against the first petitioner that the possession of the room in question be restored to the complainant. Against the order of conviction and sentence as well as the order under sec. 522(1) a revision application was filed before the learned Sessions Judge Ahmedabad. The learned Sessions Judge Ahmedabad dismissed the revision application both in regard to the sentence and conviction of the petitioners as well as in regard to the order under sec. 522(1) Cr.P.C. It is against this order of the learned Sessions Judge Ahmedabad that this revision application has been preferred to this Court. ;