Doraswami Pillai vs The King Emperor

It is clear that the conviction of the accused in this case u/s 353, I.P.C. is illegal and cannot be upheld. It is impossible to regard the constable as

engaged in the execution of his duty as a public servant when he entered upon the premises of the accused about midnight with another constable

and stood knocking at the door of the accused''s house to see if he was present. The fact that the accused is a person who is regarded by the

police as a suspicious character (K. D.) and as one whose movements ought to be watched, does, not authorise the complainant to enter upon his

premises or knock'' at his door with a view to ascertaining whether he is present in his house or not. The police circular orders referred to by the

Magistrate have not the force of law, but in justice to them; I may observe, that there is nothing whatever in any of them which warrants the course

adopted by the complainant. It is perfectly lawful for officers of the Police to watch the movements of suspected characters, and they are properly

required to do so by Police circular orders. But they can do so only by lawful means and not by trespassing upon his premises or by having

recourse to other unlawful means, It is found that the accused came out, abused and pushed, the complainant and afterwards brought a stick from

inside and lifted it up as if he was going to beat him with it and that the complainant''s turban fell on the ground when he was pushed. Under these

circumstances, the accused would no doubt be guilty of assault or of using criminal force, unless his act could be regarded as done in the exercise

of the right of private defence of property. The constable in entering upon the accused''s dwelling house and knocking at his door at midnight with

the intention of finding out whether the accused who is regarded as a suspected character by the Police was in his house or not, was technically

guilty of house trespass u/s 442 of the Indian Penal Code. The course adopted by the constable was certainly one which would cause annoyance

to the inmates of the house, if not, also insulting to the accused, and u/s 104 the accused was justified in voluntarily causing to the complainant the

slight harm which he inflicted on him, and the constable cannot be regarded u/s 99, Indian Penal Code, as acting in good faith (vide Section 52,

Indian Penal Code), under colour of his office though his act may not be strictly justifiable by law. No police circular order or any other has been

pointed out which though not strictly justifiable in law he can bona fide plead in support of the course pursued by him of entering upon the premises

of the accused at midnight and knocking at the door. I may also remark that the sentence of three months'' regorous imprisonment which was

passed upon the accused is unduly severe under the circumstances of the case, even if he were guilty of any offence. I reverse the conviction and

sentence and acquit the accused and direct that he be set at iliberty, the bail bond being cancelled.