Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.01 seconds)Section 425 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 426 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 451 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Emperor vs Lakshman Totaram on 15 May, 1915
15. The learned Magistrate has not paid sufficient attention to the intention that is required to be proved before a man can be" held guilty either of mischief or of criminal trespass and hasre-corded no finding as to what the accuseded's intention was He apparently Considers that the mere fact of the accused entering the house of the complainant and pulling down the bricks was sufficient to establish the offences charged. But the law requires the necessary intention to be proved, and in the present case I do not think that the circumstances show that the accused had the requisite intention to annoy and c, or to commit an offence. I agree that the circumstances point to the accused acting under a bona fide claim of right in pulling down the addition to the wall, so that their action is not criminal under Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code. No doubt it has been held in Emperor v. Lakshman (1902) I.L.R. 2.6 Bom. 558; s.c. 4 Bom. L.R. 280 that a knowledge of the possibility of annoyance resulting from an act of trespass is sufficient to bring the case within the definition of Section 441. In the judgment it is said (p. 562): "Although there is no presumption that a person intends what is merely a possible result of his action or a result which though reasonably certain is not known to him to be so, still it must be presumed that when a man voluntarily does an act, knowing at the time that in the natural course of events a certain result will follow, he intends to bring about that result." But in view of the absence of the complainant, when the act was done, I do not think there was such practical certainty of annoyance being caused as its "result as is sufficient to justify an inference of intent to annoy. I think, therefore, the conviction of the accused cannot be legally sustained, and I accordingly concur in the order proposed by my learned brother.
Emperor vs Gopalrao Venkatesh on 9 February, 1908
13. I concur with my learned colleague that the accused were largely themselves to blame for the prosecution in view of their having gone to their neighbour's premises in order to pull down the addition to the wall in dispute, for they thereby took the law into their own hands. This was a decidedly dangerous course to take. Thus Chandavarkar and Knight JJ. in Emperor v. Gopalrao (1908) 10 Bora. L.R. 285 held that, though a person may be entitled to have joint possession, yet he commits criminal trespass by entering on the land to recover possession forcibly from a co-owner. The actual words used are (p. 287): "But nevertheless a person with a right is not justified in taking the law into his own hands and if he does he becomes liable for criminal trespass." But the circumstances of that particular case were very different from the present one, for the accused had got people to assist him in bullying the complainant and hie workmen, and it was held that his object; was to acquire possession of the land from the complainant by insult and annoyance. If anything of that kind had occurred in the present case, I should certainly have not been disposed to interfere with the conviction of the accused.
1