1. The Appellate Court acquitted the accused of the offence of wrongful restraint and confirmed the conviction for criminal trespass.
2. In doing so the Court left the substantive sentence of fine unaltered.
3. This amounted to an enhancement of the sentence. Vide Ramzan Kunjra v. Ramkhelawan Chowbe(1). Moreover the conviction for wrongful restraint having gone it should have been found whether the accused entered upon land in the possession of another with the intention of committing some other offence or with the intention of intimidating, insulting or annoying any person in possession.
4. The facts that the crop which complainant attempted to cut had admittedly been grown by the 2nd accused and that 1st accused, who claimed that he held under an independent title and that he had leased the land to 2nd accused for cultivation, was not a party to the decree obtained by the complainant against the 2nd accused, rendered it all the more necessary for the prosecution to establish that the accused entered on land with a criminal intention.
5. The Appellate Court's finding is only that the appellants committed criminal trespass by going to the land in question intending to prevent the respondent from harvesting the crops by force. This is not enough. Force is not necessarily criminal force.
6. I must set aside the conviction and direct the fines to be refunded.
S.N/R.K
7. Conviction set aside.