In Re: Ayyanar Konar and Others

Maharajan, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge of West Thajavur in Crl. Appeal No. 48 of 1969

modifying the convictions and sentences imposed upon the Petitioners by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mannargudi, and convicting the

first accused of the offence under Sections 342 and 505 (Part II) I.P.C ., the second accused of the offence u/s 342 I. P. C, the third accused of

the offences under Ss. 342, 323 and 506 (Part II) I. P. C, and each of the accused 5 to 7 of the offence u/s 342 I. P. C. and sentencing all the

accused to pay differing sums of money by way of fine, and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for varying terms.

P.W. 1 (Natarajan) is the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Aranthangi, who in October, 1967, was deputed by the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Pattukkottai, to collect the land revenue arrears in Arasankulam Firka, because the arrears in that area had run into a huge figure. On 13th

October, 1968, P.W. 1 went to Manavanallur village at 9.15 a.m. along with P. W. 3 (The Revenue Inspector of Arasankulam). P. W. 4 (the

village Headman) P. W. 2, (a Peon) and the Talayari of that village. The party went from door to door for the purpose of collecting the land

revenue arrears. The Village Munsif collected the amounts from those who paid the arrears and passed receipts to them. When the party went to

the Cheri, the persons there failed to pay the arrears, and therefore, the Village Munsif distrained the movables belonging to them. At about 10.30

a.m. the party went to the house of the accused 2 and 1 father and son, and called upon them to pay the arrears. The accused 2 and 1 said that

they did not have to pay the arrears and they could not pay any amount. Thereupon the Village Munsif said that he would have to distrain their

articles in their house if they failed to pay the arrears. Then the Village Munsif directed Talayari Muthukaruppan to find out what articles were

available for distraint and to bring a cart and bulls for transporting the distrained articles. The Talayari brought a pair of cart bulls and threw the

distrained household articles out of the house. The Village Munsif wrote Form No. 2 and asked the accused 1 and 2 to receive a copy of the

same. But the latter refused to receive it. Then the Village Munsif signed in Form No. 2 and asked the Talayari to affix a copy thereof to she door

of the house of accused 1 and 2. After the Talayari pasted a copy of the door, the party went to the house of the third accused at about 10.45

a.m. The Village Munsif asked the third accused to pay the arrears, and on the third accused''s refusal to receive Form No. 1 he attached one

cycle, one transistor and a pair of cart bulls belonging to him. Then the party went to the house of the fourth accused at 11.30 a.m. and called upon

the fourth accused to pay the arrears. When the Village Munsif tried to distrain the articles belonging to the fourth accused, the latter prevented him

from doing so. Muthukaruppan, the Talayari, brought to big brass thavalais and other articles from inside the house of the fourth accused and

placed them on the pial of the house. The Peon Govindaswami attempted to bring those articles to the place where the party was standing. At that

juncture, the fourth accused said: ""If you touch the vessels,, I will finish you"". So saying he slapped Govindaswami on his cheek, pushed him and

beat him on his back with hands. The third accused, who was there armed with a stick, aimed a blow at Govindaswami. Gavindaswami warded it

off with his right forearm. Then the fourth accused said: ""If you distrain my articles, I will finish you"". All the accused who were in front of the fourth

accused''s house prevented the party from distraining any article belonging to the fourth accused. As the Village Munsif''s Form No. 2 was being

pasted on to the door of the fourth accused''s house, the first accused took out a chappel from his foot and aimed it at P.W. 1; but the Revenue

Inspector and others prevented the first accused from flinging it at P.W.1. As the situation became too hot, the party started going towards the

house of Meerappa Pillai. But all the accused told them that they ought not to leave the village and forced them to go inside the Mariamman Koil at

12.15 in the noon. All the accused stood guard at the entrance to the temple. At that time, the fourth accused had an aruval in his hand, whereas

accused 1 to 3, 5 and 7 had sticks. The party of P.W. 1 were thus wrongfully confined in the temple till about 5.45 P.M. The Village Munsif,

however, escaped from the temple and reported the matter to the police. At about 5.45 P.M. the police came in a jeep and hearing the sound of

the jeep all the accused ran away. A complaint was given as per Ex. P-1.

Both the Courts below accepted the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 as to the gist of the occurrence. It was, however, admitted that Manavanallur is

an inam village notified under Act 26 of 1963, that the Avadayarkoil Devasthanam is the landholder of this village and that the land revenue for the

private lands in the inam village is payable only by the Landholder, and not by any of the accused. It is, therefore, clear that the party of P. W. 1

had no right to collect the arrears from any of the accused, much else to distrain their articles. One would expect the Revenue Officials to have

satisfied themselves about the legal position before trying to distrain the articles of the accused, who were under the law not liable to pay the

arrears. As the learned Sessions Judge observes, the officials were clearly in the wrong in trying to distrain the articles.

It is now contended before me on behalf of the Petitioners that even assuming that the acts attributed to them are true, they have not committed

any offence because they have acted in the exercise of their right of private defence. So far as the wrongful confinement of the party of P. W. 1 is

concerned, it clearly amounts to an offence because it was committed, not when the movables of the accused were being wrongly distrained or

removed, but after the removal had been averted and while P.W. 1''s party, after abandoning their attempt to remove the articles, were proceeding

to the house of Veerappa Pillai. As for the offences under Sections 323 and 506 (Part II) I.P.C. I shall examine if the right of private defence was

available to the accused when they committed these offences.

S. 99 I.P.C. prescribes that there is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of

grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act may not be

directly justifiable by law. The act of the public servants in this case is not directly justifiable by law, because they distrained and tried to remove

the movables belonging to the accused, who were admittedly not liable to pay the arrears of land revenue. Nor can they be said to have acted in

good faith, because they have acted without due care and attention- (Vide S. 52 I.P.C.) But it is certainly true that when they distrained the articles

and removed the articles, they acted under colour of their office and without any malice. Can it be said that the act of the officials in distraining and

removing the movables was an act which could reasonably cause an apprehension of death or of grievous hurt? I think not. If the accused are not

entitled to the benefit of S. 99 I. P. C. the only other section they could rely upon is S. 97 I. P. C. which says:

Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in S. 92, to defend-

First. His own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body;

Secondly. The property whether moveable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the

definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.

The act of the officers in distraining and removing the movables of the accused could certainly be not regarded as an offence falling under the

definition of theft or robbery, because they were not actuated by any dishonest intention when they tried to distrain the movables in the possession

of the accused. Nor indeed can it be regarded as mischief. The question arises whether their act would fall under the definition of criminal trespass.

The relevant portion of S. 441 I. P. C. reads as follows:

Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in

possession of such to commit ""Criminal trespass"".

At the primary intention of the over-zealous Revenue officials was to collect the arrears of land revenue and as it is admitted that they were not

actuated by any malice in distraining the movables, it is impossible to suggest that when they entered into or upon the houses of the accused, they

had any intention to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of the houses, it, therefore, follows that the

accused are not entitled to any right of private defence u/s 97 I. P. C. either, I therefore, confirm the convictions imposed by the learned Sessions

Judge upon the Petitioners.

But, having regard to the fact that the Revenue Officials have acted without due care attention and have caused needless annoyance and

provocation to the accused, I reduce the amount of fine imposed upon the different accused as follows: The first accused is sentenced to pay a fine

of Re. 1/- for the offence u/s 342 I.P.C. and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a day, and to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- for the offence u/s

506 (Part II) I.P.C. and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three days; each of accused 2 and 5 to 7 is sentenced to pay a fine of Re. 1/-

for the offence u/s 342 I. P. C. and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a day; the third accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Re. 1/- for

the offence u/s 342 I.P.C. and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a day and to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- for the offence u/s 323 I. P. C.

and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three days, the fourth accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Re. 1/- for the offence u/s 342 I. P. C.

and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a day, to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- for the offence u/s 323 I. P. C, and in default to suffer simple

imprisonment for three days, and to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- for the offence u/s 506 (Part II) I. P. C. and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for

three days. If any amount of fine has been collected in excess of the fines imposed, it will be refunded to the accused concerned. Time for payment

of fine two weeks.

Subject to the above notification regarding the sentences, the appeal is dismissed.