AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
What the Joint Magistrate finds is that the intention of the accused was to take possession unlawfully of the land, and having found this he says
that the act of the accused necessarily involved annoyance to the complainant. To bring the case u/s 447, Indian Penal Code, it must be found that
the accused intended to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the complainant. The act of the accused may have caused annoyance to
the complainant when he became aware of it but unless the intention of the accused was to annoy, and this is not found, they cannot be found guilty
u/s 447, Indian Penal Code, tide Queen-Empress v. Rajapadayachi 19 M.j 240 Emperor v. Jangi Singh 26 A.n 194 and Emperor v. Bazid 27 A.n
298
We, therefore, set aside the conviction and acquit the accused. The fines if paid will be refunded.