In Re: Somadural Mudaliar and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 441 - criminal trespass, what constitutes--intent to annoy, whether existence of any other intent negatives--breaking open house in possession of complainant--intention--presumption--offence. - - in the present case, the appellate magistrate finds 'clearly their' (the accused's) 'intention to annoy the complainant.ordersadasiva aiyar, j.1. in some of the cases quoted by the appellants' learned counsel, the lower courts did not find the intention to annoy. in the present case, the appellate magistrate finds 'clearly their' (the accused's) 'intention to annoy the complainant.'2. as regards other cases quoted by petitioner's counsel (mostly calcutta cases) in which the judges have held that an intention to annoy; should be positively proved and that if some other intention is also evident, an intention to annoy should not1 be presumed, i respectfully differ from those cases and agree with the judgment of benson, j., in sellamuthu servaigaran v. pallamuthu karuppen 9 ind. cas. 1523. the inevitable consequence of the act of the accused in this case in breaking open a house which had been delivered (with the aid of the police) through court to the complainant must be serious mental annoyance to the complainant, and the intention to cause such annoyance follows the knowledge of the accused as human beings that such annoyance must be caused.4. i dismiss this petition.

Judgment:

ORDER

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. In some of the cases quoted by the appellants' learned Counsel, the lower Courts did not find the intention to annoy. In the present case, the Appellate Magistrate finds 'clearly their' (the accused's) 'intention to annoy the complainant.'

2. As regards other cases quoted by petitioner's Counsel (mostly Calcutta cases) in which the Judges have held that an intention to annoy; should be positively proved and that if some other intention is also evident, an intention to annoy should not1 be presumed, I respectfully differ from those cases and agree with the judgment of Benson, J., in Sellamuthu Servaigaran v. Pallamuthu Karuppen 9 Ind. Cas. 152

3. The inevitable consequence of the act of the accused in this case in breaking open a house which had been delivered (with the aid of the Police) through Court to the complainant must be serious mental annoyance to the complainant, and the intention to cause such annoyance follows the knowledge of the accused as human beings that such annoyance must be caused.

4. I dismiss this petition.