Emperor vs Rama Lala

Batchelor, J.—In this case the accused has been convicted of wrongful restraint u/s 339, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to a fine. On appeal to the Additional District Magistrate, Mr. Sedgwick, the conviction was upheld. The learned District Magistrate, however, finds as a fact that the person said to have been obstructed was still able to proceed across the passage in question. That being so, we do not think that he can be said to have been wrongfully restrained, seeing that the definition u/s 339 requires that the obstruction should be so complete and successful as to prevent the person obstructed from proceeding in any direction in which he has a right to proceed. The wrong here defined is a wrong against the person, and is not completed where the person is at liberty to go in any direction he pleases. That is the case here (sic) facts found by the Magistrate, and it appears to the (sic) material that the person, though himself unobstructed, (sic) hindered from driving a bullock-cart through the passage. W(sic) must, therefore, make the rule absolute, set aside the conv(sic)tion and sentence and direct that the fine, if paid, be refun(sic) to the accused.