M.N. Shukla, J. - (1.) BY this revision the Applicant has challenged his conviction Under Section 447 IPC and sentence to a fine of Rs. 100/ - or in default one month's rigorous imprisonment. The revision raises a somewhat important question bearing on the ingredients of the offence of criminal 'trespass' I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length.
(2.) THE material facts for appreciating the point of law canvassed before me are that the Applicant is the husband of the owner of a house situate in Mohalla Seth Pura, Mathura City. The house was in the occupation of the Allahabad Bank Ltd. as a tenant. The report regarding the incident giving rise to this case was lodged by the Agent of the Bank against the Applicant. The allegations made by the prosecution were that to the west of the building occupied by the Allahabad Bank Ltd., there was open land on which servants quarters existed. The owner wanted to make some new constructions on the open space and in doing so the Applicant acting on behalf of the owner and supervising the entire action, dismantled the western boundary wall and some portions of the northern and southern boundary walls of the house and constructed new walls in their places after encroaching upon the land in the occupation of the Allahabad Bank. It is alleged that the Agent of the Bank objected to this action of the Applicant but the latter assured him that he would not trespass over the land but would get the walls constructed a new. He, however, did not Keep to his word and committed trespass. The complainant lodged a report of the incident at police station Kotwali on the same day i.e. 11 -1 -1966 and when the Station Officer reached the spot, the masons and the labourers ran away and the accused who were supervising their work were arrested on the spot. The police investigated into the offence and submitted a charge sheet against the Applicant. The accused stated that his wife was the owner of the house in dispute that he had civil litigation with the complainant and the criminal case had been instituted by way of revenge. He further stated that the new wall had been built at the same spot where the old wall -existed and no area of the Allahabad Bank was trespassed. In defence he examined one Roshan Lal, the mason who had constructed the new building of the accused. The witness stated that the new walls had been built at the same place where the old ones stood and no encroachment was made.
(3.) THE prosecution examined four witnesses to prove its case. They are Raghunath Prasad Mahrotra, Agent of the Allahabad Bank (PW 1), Raghunath Prasad Chaturvedi, Supervisor of the Bank (PW 2), Tejpal Singh, Station Officer (PW 3) and Head Constable Rajendra Prasad Sharma (PW 4).;