Robert Lindsay Ross, J.

1. One Sardar Ahir died leaving his mother Musammat Beradri and his widow Musammat Ramratia. Musammat Beradri was living in his house. There was a case in the Land Registration Department where Musammat Ramratia had applied for registration of her name in respect of the house. During the pendency of that case, Ramratia was brought by the four petitioners and put into the house of her late husband. The petitioners have been convicted under Sections 448 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trying Magistrate fined them Rs. 15 each under each section and the learned District Magistrate on appeal reduced the fine to Rs. 15 each in all. The charge under Section 448 was that the accused unlawfully entered into the house of the complainant, no intent is specified in the charge. The Courts below have found that the mother Musammat Beradri was in exclusive possession and that Musammat Ramratia was forcibly implanted into the house with a view to strengthen her position in the Land Registration Court. This is the intent that has been found by both the Courts. The Trying Magistrate says that "it is quite probable that Ramkewal with the help of the co-accused wanted to push his mistress into the house of her husband in order to prove that she lived in the house of Sardar and thus to bring success to Ramratia in the L.R. Case". The finding of the District Magistrate is in the terms which I have quoted above. Now this intent is not such an intent as is specified in Section 441. In order to constitute criminal trespass there must be an intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of property. Musammat Ramratia being the widow of Sardar Ahir, had a bona fide claim to be in possession of the house. There is no reason to doubt the bona fide of the claim as a widow she would be entitled to be there. That certain consequences, followed upon her entry into the house is no ground for holding that the intent of the accused was such as is defined in Section 441. Musammat Beradri was assaulted in the course of the occurrence; but it cannot reasonably be supposed that the intent of the petitioners was to assault Musammat Beadri. The finding of the Courts below that the entry was made by Musamwrnt Ramratia with a view to strengthen her case in the Land Registration Court is, in my opinion, fatal to a conviction under Section 448, where the claim was a bona fide one.

2. With regard 16 the conviction under Section 352, Indian Penal Code, nothing has been said on the merits. The assault was a cowardly one and some sentence must be imposed. The difficulty is that the District Magistrate has not apportioned the fine between the two sections. I would, therefore, set aside the fine imposed by the Magistrate with the conviction under Section 448, Indian Penal Code, and fine the petitioners Rs. 10 each, and in default one week's rigorous imprisonment, under Section 352.