Punni Basava and Others vs Amara Gounden

Miller, J.—Assuming that the 1st Class Magistrate had power to alter the conviction from one u/s 341, I. P. C., to one u/s 143, I. P. C. I do

not think that there is evidence to support the conviction under the latter section.

The 1st Class Magistrate finds that the accused bona fide believing that the land which the complainant was about to plough was the property of

some among them prevented the ploughing without the use of violence, but threatening to use force if the complainant''s attempts were persisted in.

It is clear that the 1st and 3rd accused would have a right to prevent the wrongful entry of the complainant on their land but no doubt if it were

shown they had collected a number of persons together to support their right by show of force they might bring themselves within Section 141. I

cannot find that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses accepting it all as true proves this, possibly because the 3rd Class Magistrate did not

look upon the case in this light or try to ascertain if there was evidence accordingly. As the 1st Class Magistrate finds that there was no offence u/s

341, I can only set aside the conviction of the accused and direct the refund of the fines, if paid.