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
8 paragraphs · 215 wordsWe do not consider that the conviction u/s 188, Indian Penal Code can be upheld. The order passed by the Magistrate u/s 146 of the Criminal
Procedure Code was an order to a Police-officer to take possession of the land and not an order to any one of the accused persons. It is urged
that the order of the 29th July 1896 is one the disobedience of which would constitute an offence u/s 188, Indian Penal Code, but we cannot
accept that view. This is merely an administrative order by the Deputy Collector to the Tahsildar to the effect that the lands are not to be leased out
for the future. We set aside the conviction of the 3rd accused u/s 188, Indian Penal Code. It is, however, shown that the 1st and 2nd accused
deliberately entered on the land while it was still under attachment by order of the Magistrate. In doing so they, we consider, committed an offence
u/s 447, and we uphold the findings and sentences of the Magistrate under this Section. The 3rd accused, it is admitted, did not enter on the land
and he has been, convicted u/s 188, Indian Penal Code, only. It is ordered that the fine imposed on him be refunded if it has been paid.