Pottivadu and Another vs Veerayya

Charles Arnold White, C.J.—In this case the petitioners were convicted of an offence u/s 447 of the Indian Penal Code (criminal trespass)

and an order was subsequently made which purported to be u/s 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question is, was this order u/s 522 a

legal order or is it bed as having been made without jurisdiction. The conditions precedent that must exist before an order can be made u/s 522 are

(1) some person must have been convicted of an offence attended by criminal force and (2) some person must have been dispossessed of

Immovable property by such force.

It is clear that the use of criminal force is not a necessary ingredient of an offence under Sectopm 447 of the Indian Penal Code. The Calcutta

High Court have held1 that ""an offence attended by criminal force"" means an offence of which criminal force is an ingredient Ram Chandra Boral v.

Jityandria ILR 25 C. 434. I am inclined to think that this is too narrow a construction to place on the very general words ""attended by criminal

force."" In the present case, however, there is no finding by the court which convicted the petitioners that any criminal force was in fact used by the

petitioners or that the complainant was dispossessed of the land by such force. This being so, and criminal force not being an ingredient of the

offence for which the petitioners were convicted, I think the order which purported to be made u/s 522 of the Cr.P.C., was made without

jurisdiction and must be set aside. Ordered accordingly.

I order that petitioners be restored to possession.