The Judgment of the Court was as follows:—
We think, having regard to the terms of sec. 79 of the Indian Penal Code, that the conviction in this case is not right. The learned Sessions Judge seems to think that there was no mistake of fact, when the Petitioners took steps to examine the palki. He says that the Petitioners “acted on a mere supposition, on the chance that the judgment-debtor might be in the palki.” We find, however, that the palki was coming out at the time, not of the female, but of the male, apartments, and the judgment-debtor being in the house in question, the Petitioners, in the action they took, naturally thought there was some reason to believe that the judgment debtor was getting out of the way (there having been a warrant issued for his arrest), so as to evade the service of such warrant.
The lady who was in the palki has given her evidence in the case, and she says that the whole thing was the work of a moment. That being so, we are unable to say that any harm was really intended by the Petitioners when they went to examine the palki, since they had some reason to believe, as is apparent upon this record, that the judgment-debtor might be in the palki.
We do not think, therefore, that the Petitioners in this case should have been convicted of an offence under sec. 341, I.P.C, and we accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence, and direct that the fines, if realised, be refunded.
Rule made absolute.