N ABDUL HADI Vs. MAJU BI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the Sub-Magistrate, Ambur who after convicting respondents 1 to 3 of the offence under Section 448, I. P. C. (house trespass), refused to allow the petitioner's application under Section 522, Criminal P. C. for restoration of possession of the house of which he had been dispossessed by the respondents. The conviction of the respondents has been confirmed in appeal as well as in revision by me. The question arises whether, in the circumstances of the case, the learned Magistrate was right in refusing to order the victim's application for restoration of possession under Section 522, Criminal P. C.

(2.) IT is true that the evidence on record Shows that at the time the respondents committed house trespass, the petitioner was not in actual physical possession of the house and no violence was used, against the person of the petitioner Section 522, Criminal P. C. prescribes:

(3.) SECTION 350 defines 'criminal force' and says- Whoever intentionally uses force to any person without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause or knowing it to be likely that by the use of. such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other. N. . Abdul Hadi vs. Maju Bi and Ors. (28. 07. 1972 -MADHC) Page 3 of 4 If we adopt the Indian Penal Code definition of 'criminal force' or 'show or force', it will be difficult to hold that when the respondents effected house trespass in the absence of the Petitioner, they were guilty of employing 'criminal force' or 'show of force' or 'criminal intimidation' in the sense in which these expressions have been used in the Indian Penal Code. But I think it wrong to interpret the language of Section 532, Criminal P. C. in the light of the definitions given in the Indian Penal Code. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not define 'criminal force' or 'show of force'. There is nothing in it to show that when the Legislature used these expressions in Section 522 it intended to give them the connotation-which the authors of the Indian Penal Code had given for the purposes of that Code. I think it therefore right to give these words the ordinary dictionary meaning.