S.Malik - (1.) RASHID Ahmad has come up in revision against the order dated 26-2-1980 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur allowing Criminal Revision No. 227 of 1979 filed before the Sessions Judge be the opposite-parties.
(2.) THE relevant facts are that there was a dispute between the applicant and opposite-party No. 1 Rashidan, regarding possession of house. It led to proceedings under section 145 of the GrPC and ultimately the Magistrate concerned by his order dated 5-4-1977 held that the applicant was in possession of the disputed house on the relevant date. On 27-3-1979 the applicant filed a complaint against opposite-parties 1 to 6 alleging that the opposite-party No, 1, Rashidan, with the help of the others forcibly took unauthorised possession of the disputed house on 4-2-1976 during the pendency of the case under section 145 of the CrPC and since then inspite of service of a notice requiring her to vacate the house she has continued to remain in possession and has, thus, committed 'criminal trespass' punishable under section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate issued process against the opposite-parties, who appeared before him and took the plea that the complaint was time barred in view of section 468 of the CrPC. It was urged that according to the complaint, the complainant was dispossessed on the 4th February, 1976 and the complaint was not filed till the 27th of March, 1979 long after the period of one 'year's limitation provided in section 468 (1) (b) of the CrPC. The learned Magistrate rejected the objection holding that the complaint was not time barred. The opposite-parties, there after, went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, who upheld their objection and held that the complaint was time barred.
(3.) THE question before the court is whether the period of limitation of one year should be reckoned from the 4th of February, 1976 the alleged date of dispossession of the applicant. 'Criminal trespass' has been defined in Section 441 of the IPC. It is in two parts. The first part lays down "whoever enters into or upon property in possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property" commits 'criminal trespass'. The second part lays down "or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent there by to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence.";