Mukul Gopal Mukherji, J. - (1.) The accused petitioner impugns an order of conviction and sentence under Sections 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two months for the offence of house-trespass and R.I. for one month for criminal intimidation. The accused petitioner moved the learned Sessions Judge on appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Alipore 24 - Parganas by an order dated 15-4-1985 has upheld the order of conviction and sentence. Hence this criminal revision.
(2.) The Opposite Party No.2 Debi Parsad Mukherjee lodged a complaint against the petitioner to the effect that he has been the owner of the premises No. 8/2, Jamir Lane and is in possession of three rooms in the first floor of the said premises, one through the present petitioner as licensee and the other two rooms were in his direct possession though the same were kept under lock and key. It is the prosecution case that on 15-6-1978 he found the two rooms which were under his direct possession and kept under lock and key, forcibly occupied by the accused petitioner who broke open the locks and when the complainant opposite party No.2 wanted to go upstairs, the accused petitioner prevented him and abused him in a filthy and intimidatory language at the trial, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and the accused petitioner examined two witnesses for the defence. P.W. 1 was the complainant himself who gave out in course of his testimony that after obtaining the probate in respect of the Will of- Late Taradasi Debi who was the owner of the house, he asked the accused petitioner to vacate the room occupied by him on the first floor. The accused petitioner was a servant of Smt Taradasi Debi and admittedly was in possession of one room in the first floor during the lifetime of Smt. Taradasi Debi and it was on her death when the complainant opposite party No.2 came to own the house, the accused petitioner agreed to vacate but wanted some time for the purpose and he was granted occupation in respect of one room only. It came from the testimony of P.W. 1 that on 15-6-78 at about 6 p.m. while he along with one Pabitra Kumar Roy Chaudhury, a tenant in the ground floor and one Krishna Mohan Ghosh tried to go upstairs, the accused petitioner along with two others restrained them on the landing of the first floor and abused them in filthy language and threatened them in such a manner which resorted to criminal intimidation. P.W. 2 Pabitra Kumar Roy Chaudhury, the ground floor tenant in the disputed premises corroborated P.W. 1 as regards the incident. P.W.3 Krishna Mohan Ghosh who allegedly accompanied P.W. 1 also gave his testimony which was believed by the learned trial Magistrate. P.W. 4 Susanta Dey a neighbour also corroborated the version as given by the other prosecution witnesses as regards the manner of possession of the rooms by the accused petitioner who forcibly caused criminal trespass in respect of two rooms which were previously under the occupation of the O.P. No.2. The learned Magistrate who tried the case was of opinion that none of the witnesses P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 were interested witnesses and they were worthy of credence.
(3.) It was the defence version that the accused petitioner was the adopted son of Late Taradasi Devi and D.W. 2 Anil Ch. Biswas came to support the said story just from the mere fact that the accused petitioner used to call Smt. Taradasi Devi as mother. The learned Magistrate took into consideration the admission of the witness that servants normally call their female employers as mother and the claim of the accused petitioner as an adopted son was completely demolished after the complainant opposite Party No.2 obtained the probate in respect of the will of Smt. Taradasi Devi. One of the unsuccessful contestants to the probate proceeding Samar Mukhetjee came to depose in this case as a defence witness. But he did not remember exactly if he mentioned in his .written objection to the probate proceeding itself that the accused petitioner was engaged by them as a caretaker of the house. He was taken to be an interested witness unworthy of any credence by the learned Magistrate and was found that there could not be any bona fide claim of possession of the accused petitioner in this case, particularly after the probate was granted in favour of the complainant opposite party No.2. The learned m trial Magistrate was convinced on a proper sifting of the evidence that both the charges were brought home against the petitioner.;