AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
17 paragraphs · 392 wordsB.S. Somasundaram, J.—Solomon Rajayya, P. W. 1 was the Tahsildar at Aranthangi. On the 20th October, 1968, the revision petitioner
went to his house and questioned him about the reinstatement of a Village Headman. There was a wordy altercation between the two. The latter
suggested that the former was not doing it, because he had received some illegal gratification. The Tahsildar said that if that was the case he might
lay a complaint before the vigilance officers. The petitioner then said that he would leave the place only after shoeing him. P. Ws. 2 and 3 who
were then present pacified him. This is all what happened on that day. The Tahsildar gave a complaint. Charge-sheet was filed against the
petitioner for offences under sections 451, 353 and 355 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court convicted him for all the three offences and
sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100 under each count. On appeal, the District Magistrate held that no offence u/s 355 of the Indian Penal Code,
was made out. However, he confirmed the conviction and the sentence passed under sections 451 and 353 Indian Penal Code. The correctness of
this order is now canvassed in this revision.
The evidence adduced establishes that there was only a wordy altercation between the two. The petitioner is said to have said that he would
leave the place only after shoeing the former. There is no evidence to show that there was any gesture no as to bring the matter within the ambit of
Section 355, Indian Penal Code. The lower appellate Court has correctly acquitted him for this offence. When this is so, there can be no
conviction for the offence u/s 353, Indian Penal Code also, because, the finding is that no force was used by the petitioner. Only on that basis he
has acquitted him for the offence u/s 355, Indian Penal Code. For the offence u/s 451 also, (house trespass), there should be an entry in order to
commit any offence which is punishable with imprisonment. Now that it is found that the petitioner has not committed any offence, it follows that
there can be no conviction u/s 451, Indian Penal Code also. The revision is allowed. The convictions and sentences passed against him are set
aside. The fine if collected shall be refunded.