1968 P Cr (PLP)

Petitioners in person. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th February 1968. CORNELIUS, C. J.-The petitioners, twenty-seven in number, were in possession, in separate plots on which they had put up jhuggis, of a vacant piece of land belonging to one Hussainbhoy Karimji. They were paying rent to one Ismail Agaria, by whom they appear to have been placed in possession. The landlord sued in 1952 for ejectment of Ismail Agaria and all persons claiming through him, and obtained a decree for vacant possession in 1960. From that time, the landlord has been making efforts to eject the petitioners with only partial success. The petitioners sued to avoid the order of ejectment, and obtained interim injunctions, but eventually their suit and a consequent appeal were both dismissed. It appears they have filed a further suit, which has been pending for the past two years and more. The present petition comes before the Court in consequence of the dismissal by the High Court of a revision against the conviction of the petitioners by a Magistrate on charges under sections 147 and 447, P. P. C., and a consequential order under section 522, Cr. P. C., for delivery of possession to the landlord. There are concurrent findings by the Magistrate and the learned Single Judge in the High Court as to the rioting and criminal trespass by the use of force. The High Court has approved the order under section 522, Cr. P. C., on the basis of the latter finding. The petitioners seek special leave to appeal against this order. We have heard one Musa, who appeared as representative of the body of petitioners. His argument is that there is no evidence to show rioting or trespass, or the use of force. The judgment of the High Court considers the point, and comes to the conclusion that although the Chowkidar Sikandar, who was alleged to have been beaten and thrown out by the petitioners was not produced at the trial, there was other evidence of an eye-witness who saw this incident; and this was accepted by the High Court, in support of the other evidence in the case, in the following words, viz: - "The evidence of Karimji . . . . . leaves no room for doubt that the applicants had committed trespass and were guilty of the offences with which they had been charged." The contention that the convictions are based on no evidence is therefore untenable. The use of force having been held proved, the order under section 522, Cr. P. C., was clearly valid. This petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed