RASH BEHARI CHATTERJEE versus FAGU SHAW & ORS.

RASH BEHARI CHATTERJEE versus FAGU SHAW & ORS.

The appellant, having obtained possession through decree and execution, was in actual possession of the land. The law does not require the person intended to be annoyed to be present during the trespass for s. 441/447 IPC. The respondents' intention was to annoy the appellant, and no other dominant intention is evident from facts.

Parties
Appellant: Rash Debari Chatterjee; Respondent: Fagu Shaw; Respondents: Respondents Nos. 2-8; Respondent: Respondent No. 9
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 April 1969
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Judgment in Criminal Revision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside.
Legal Topics
Criminal Trespass, Intent to Annoy Under IPC S. 441, Elements of Offence Under S. 447 IPC, Actual Possession
Criminal Law Criminal Trespass Intent to Annoy Under IPC S. 441 Elements of Offence Under S. 447 IPC Actual Possession

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rash Debari Chatterjee

Appellant

Fagu Shaw

Respondent

Respondents Nos. 2-8

Respondents

Respondent No. 9

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Judgment in Criminal Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was in actual possession of the land at the relevant time under s. 441/447 IPC
  2. 2 Whether intent to annoy requires presence of the person at the time of trespass under IPC

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant, having obtained possession through decree and execution, was in actual possession of the land. The law does not require the person intended to be annoyed to be present during the trespass for s. 441/447 IPC. The respondents' intention was to annoy the appellant, and no other dominant intention is evident from facts.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside.

Orders

  • Judgment and order of the Magistrate 1st Class, Serampur, affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoogly, is restored.
  • Respondents sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.