Harries, C.J. - (1.) This is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Presidency Magistrate convicting the accused persons of an offence under Section 341, Penal Code and sentencing each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 50 and in default of payment of the fine each to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
(2.) How this dispute could be made the subject matter of criminal proceedings I find it difficult to understand. The learned Magistrate seems to think that it was not a civil dispute. But if ever there was a civil dispute this is one.
(3.) Shortly the case of the complainant was that he was the tenant of certain rooms of the ground floor and of the first floor of the premises concerned, No. 310 Chittaranjan Avenue. According to him there were on the first floor a bathroom and a privy which he as tenant used. He went away according to his evidence on the last Saraswati Puja day and on returning the next morning found that the door of the bathroom and the privy on the first floor had been padlocked. This he said restrained his movements and accordingly he made a complaint under Section 341, Penal Code. That section is in these terms: "Whoever, wrongfully restrains any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both." And wrongful restraint is defined in Section 339, Penal Code as: "Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person." It is to be observed that there is an exception to Section 339 to the effect that "the obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence.";