AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The first Class Sub-divisional Magistrate found that the petitioners all acted in accordance with the directions of the 1st accused. He found that before and at the time of the alleged offences the 1st accused was in possession of the receptacle containing the paddy contributions, and had appointed his own watchmen, two of whom are amongst the petitioners, and that the complainant had sent a notice to the 1st accused whereby he acknowledged the 1st accused's possession and stated that he would be held responsible for all damage. The Sabha only authorized the complainant to endeavour to remove the paddy peaceably, and if he met with any resistance directed him to resort to a Civil Court. The complainant endeavoured to take possession of the paddy forcibly with his servants, and the acts complained of were done by the 1st accused and the petitioners in resisting this attempt to take possession and in maintaining the possession of the 1st accused.
In the circumstances, no offence was committed and the petitioners and the 1st accused should have been acquitted.
We set aside the convictions and acquit and discharge all the petitioners.
The fines, if paid, will be refunded.