Dakkamarri Kannayya and Others vs Vadali Venkatesan

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, Indian Penal Code. 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 Procedure Code would certainly have had no difficulty in dismissing the

complaint u/s 203, Criminal Procedure Code, 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 have already said, have been dismissed in limine u/s 203 Criminal Procedure Code. Not only was

this not done but there was a long and protracted trial of these poor was her men from March, 1936, till July, 1936, the interval between the

closing of the case and the pronouncement of the judgment being merely 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 outest 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, Indian Penal Code 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 sentences are, therefore, set aside and the petitioners acquitted. The fines paid by them should be refunded.