- (1.) M. C. Jain, J. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for O. P. No. 2. The learned A. G. A. is present for O. P. No. 1.
(2.) THIS revision sought to be filed against the order dated 13-5-1991 passed by Special Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Revision No. 230/1990 is ad mitted and is finally disposed of today itself for which purpose also it is listed today as per the earliest order dated 26-7-1991. O. P. No. 2 before this Court is tenant of certain premises of the ap plicants No. 1 to 4 and applicants No. 5 to 7 are said to be their associates. The present O. P. No. 1 filed a complaint against the applicants inter alia under Sec tion 441 of I. P. C. that they forcibly evicted him from the tenanted accommodation in between the night of 2/3-5-1990. A notice as per Section 441, I. P. C. was served and ultimately the complaint was filed. The Magistrate found that notice under Sec tion 441, I. P. C. was defective and dis missed the complaint. On revision filed by the present O. P. No. 2, Revisional Court reversed the order of the Magistrate. Sec tion 441, I. P. C. specifically provides that in the notice to be served upon offender, it has to be specified as to by which date he has to withdraw his unauthorised posses sion. In the case at hand, notice did not specify such actual date. Therefore, the notice was defective and Magistrate was perfectly justified in dismissing the com plaint. The Revisional Court has im properly exercised its jurisdiction in reversing the Magistrate's order. This Revision is allowed. The order dated 13-5-1991 in question passed by the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 230/1990 is quashed and that of the Magistrate dated 23-8-1990 dismiss ing the complaint under Section 203, Cr. PC. is upheld. Revision allowed. .;