Mohd. Yamin, J. - (1.) This is a revision against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner dated 15.11.1997 by which he maintained the conviction of the petitioner under Section 443 IPC but reduced the sentence and gave benefit of Probation of Offenders Act but maintained the order for delivery of possession of the house to the complainant.
(2.) Facts of the case may be narrated as follows- Kedarnath PW-4 was the power of attorney holder of Asha Kumari. He sent a written report to Superintendent of Police, Bikaner which he received on 8.1.1983 at 4.30 RM. It stated that Asha Kumari's house was situated in Mohalla of Sansis in Bikaner. Possession of the same was taken on 20.11.1980 through Sale Amin and the house was locked. Power of attorney holder thereafter went to Jodhpur in relation to his business. He returned to Bikaner on 19.12.1980 and when he reached the house he found that Smt. Shahodara was in its occupation. She was asked as to how she entered into the house. Then she started quarrelling. Kundanlal and others collected and tried to pursuade Smt. Shahodara who told that she had occupied the house after breaking open the lock. On inquiry the power of attorney holder came to know that after three days of its occupation Smt. Shahodara broke open the lock and took possession of the house on 22.11.1980. She thus forcibly took possession of the house in order to annoy, intimidate and insult Asha Kumari. A case was registered under Section 448 IPC and Balwant Singh ASI ivestigated the matter. After investigation challan was submitted before the Magistrate having jurisdiction who read over accusation to the petitioner on 24.2.1982. The petitioner denied her indictment and claimed trial. Prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and exhibited various documents. Then the petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.RC. she did not examine any witness in defence. Learned Magistrate, after hearing both the parties, convicted the petitioner to offence under Section 448 IPC and sentenced is to four months simple imprisonment and also ordered that the possession of the house will be delivered to the complainant. Appeal was preferred which was decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge who maintained the finding of guilt against the petitioner but gave benefit of probation to the petitioner. He maintained the other part of sentence including delivery of vacant possession of the house to the complainant.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant.;