AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1 paragraphs · 70 words
1.
The crop was raised by the petitioner and it was harvested by him before possession was restored to the opposite party. There was therefore no disobedience of the order prohibiting the petitioner from interfering with the possession of the opposite party and the conviction u/s 188 (2), Penal Code, is unsustainable. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner are, therefore, set aside and his bail bonds will be cancelled.