Dakamarri Kannayya vs Vadali Venkatesam

Pandrang Row, J.—This is a case in which the petitioners who are dhobies by occupation have been convicted of criminal trespass and

sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5/- each u/s 447, I.P.C. After a mere perusal of the complaint itself and the sworn deposition, any Magistrate who

applied his mind to the provisions of Section 203, Criminal P.C., would certainly have had no difficulty in dismissing the complaint u/s 203,

Criminal P.C., and it would have been his duty to do so.

The alleged trespass was on a piece of vacant site and it happened at a time when neither the complainant nor any one on his behalf was in

actual possession; the complainant himself was not able to say on what date the alleged trespass took place. The accused were admittedly owners

of the adjoining land and undoubtedly there was a dispute about the boundary. The complaint should, as I have already said, have been dismissed

in limine u/s 203, Criminal P.C. Not only was this not done but there was a long and protracted trial of these poor washermen from March 1936

till July 1936, the interval between the closing of the case and the pronouncement of the judgment being nearly two months. The judgment of the

Bench Magistrates does not give a single reason in support of their finding that the accused are guilty. They do not state what the evidence is either

of the alleged encroachment or trespass or of the intention that lay behind it. The judgment does not fulfil the elementary requirements of the law.

Even in cases tried summarily where there is a conviction there must be a brief statement of the reasons for it and there is nothing that is worthy to

be called a reason to be found in the judgment in support of the conviction. On the material before me I have no doubt that either the complaint

should have been dismissed at the very outset or the Magistrates ought to have acquitted the petitioners and even ordered the complainant to pay

compensation for dragging them unnecessarily to a Criminal Court on a false and vexatious complaint, with the object of compelling them to come

to terms. This is a case which engenders some doubt as to the desirability of entrusting the disposal of cases coming u/s 447, I.P.C., to Bench

Courts. There seems to be a difficulty felt by Bench Courts in distinguishing between cases of civil trespass and cases of criminal trespass. In this

particular case there is no doubt that the conviction of the petitioners was quite wrong on the merits and that the judgment is not according to law.

The convictions and the sentences are therefore set aside and the petitioners acquitted. The fines paid by them should be refunded.