( 1 ) THE two petitioners have been convicted under section 341, Indian penal Code and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 30 with a default imprisonment of one week each.

( 2 ) OUT of S. No. 31 covering an extent of ac. 2-62 cents the complainant was assigned two bits of lands of a total extent of ac. 1-0 in 1952. These two plots of land along with the rest were being used by the villagers for pasturage purposes and till 1948 this was in exclusive enjoyment of the accused. But, subsequently the Government prohibited the villagers from using this land and converted it into cultivable land for the purpose of granting it to landless poor. Subsequent to the assignment the complainant removed the shrubs and began the cultivation of the two bits of land.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, on the morning of 4th December, 1952, when p. W. 1, the complainant, was ploughing one of the plots of land the 1st accused unyoked the buffaloes in spite of the remonstrances of P. W.

1. P. W. 1 then thought of going to the other plot for the purpose of cultivation. He was so proceeding to the second field with the buffaloes. The 2nd accused who was sitting in a shed came out and asked him as to who had given him the order to cultivate his lands. When the witness replied that it was the Government that did it he threw a stone at the buffaloes and turned them back. The result was that he also went back.

( 4 ) IN support of the prosecution case a number of witnesses were examined including the complainant. All the witnesses spoke to the prosecution case as set out above. The plea of the accused was that they were in possession of the land for several years prior to the assignment to the complainant, that because they filed an appeal against the order of assignment the complainant has foisted this case against them. The trial Court rejecting the defence and accepting the prosecution evidence convicted the petitioners under section 341, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to a fine as mentioned above. This was confirmed in appeal by the Joint Magistrate.

( 5 ) IN support of this Revision Petition against the conviction of the petitioners, it is urged by Mr. Suryaprakasam that even on the prosecution evidence no offence of wrongful restraint has been made out. It is argued by him that as no obstruction was caused to any person within the meaning of section 339, Indian Penal Code, which defines wrongful restraint, neither of the two accused could be convicted under section 341, Indian Penal Code. In support of this contention he relied on a number of decided cases, which will be referred to presently. Before dealing with the case-law, it is useful to refer to the terms of section 339, which defines wrongful restraint :"whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person. Exception.-The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section. "

( 6 ) IT is seen that the essence of an offence under section 341 is the causing of obstruction to a person, i. e. , a human being and an obstruction caused to animals belonging to a person would not amount to an offence within the meaning of section 341, Indian Penal Code. In Durga Pada Chatterjee v. Nilmani Ghose, A. I. R. 1935 Cal. 252, [LQ/CalHC/1934/201] Justice Patterson ruled that voluntary obstruction to a vehicle in which a person was travelling does not amount to a wrongful restraint as defined in section 339, Indian Penal code. It is pointed out by the learned Judge that since section 341 is found in chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code which deals with offences affecting the human body, the obstruction caused, in order to constitute an offence, must be to a person. In support of his conclusion the learned Judge relied on another judgment of the same Court in Juggeshwar Das v. Koylash Chunder, (1885) I. L. R. 12 Cal. 55, and that of the bombay High Court in Emperor v. Rama Lala, (1912) 19 I. C. 177. Much to the same effect are the observations of Justice Abdur Rahman who delivered the opinion of the Bench in Maharani of Nabha v. The Province of Madras, (1942) 2 M. L. J. 14 : I. L. R. (1942) Mad. 69

6.

( 7 ) WHILE discussing the question whether the conduct of the defendants officers amounted to an offence of wrongful confinement the learned Judge remarked thus at page 25 :"the offences of wrongful restraint or wrongful confinement are offences affecting human body and cannot be said to have been committed if a person is not restrained or confined himself but only the liberty of going in the conveyance in which he wishes to go or taking the article which he wishes to carry and without which he is not willing to proceed is denied to him. "

( 8 ) THERE are some decisions of the Madras High Court which have taken a contrary view. In In re Peria Ponnuswami Goundan, A. I. R. 1927 Mad. 506, [LQ/MadHC/1926/458] Justice Jackson held that restraining a horse on which a person was riding would amount to wrongful restraint and it was not a defence that he might have got off the horse and walked in the same direction. This was followed by Justice Happell in Gopala Reddy v. Lakshmi reddy, (1946) 2 M. L. J. 281 : I. L. R. (1947) Mad. 555. That was a case of a person driving a cart along a path in front of the house of the accused who stopped the cart and unyoked the bulls. The learned Judge agreeing with Justice Jackson in the case cited above came to the conclusion that causing obstruction to a vehicle in which a person was travelling could amount to wrongful restraint of that person. Referring to the observations of the Bench in Maharani of Nabha v. The Province of Madras, (1942) 2 M. L. J. 14 : I. L. R. (1942) Mad. 696, he remarked that they were obiter and he was not prepared to follow them in preference to In re Perm Ponnuswami goundan, A. I. R. 1927 Mad. 506 [LQ/MadHC/1926/458] and Md. Yusuf Sahib, In re. , (1938) 2 M. L. J. 58

3.

( 9 ) IN the case on hand, I am relieved of the necessity of resolving the conflict for the reason that this case cannot fall within the principle of either In re Peria ponnuswami Goundan or Gopala Reddy v. Lakshmi Reddy, (1946)2 M. L. J. 281 : I. L. R. (1947) Mad. 555. This is not a case of obstruction being caused to a conveyance in which a person is travelling or to an animal carrying a person. According to the prosecution, A-1 unyoked the buffaloes and the part attributed to A-2 was that he turned away the buffaloes of the complainant which he was taking to the other plot for purposes of ploughing. As regards the 1st accused, there can be no doubt that he is not guilty of any offence because unyoking of buffaloes tied to a plough would not amount to wrongful restraint of a person.

( 10 ) AS regards the 2nd accused it is argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that although no obstruction was caused to the complainant, as a result of turning back the buffaloes, the complainant had to turn back and this amounted indirectly to an obstruction caused to the person of the complainant. I do not think I can accede to this proposition. The fact that an act of an accused indirectly results in the complainant not proceeding in the direction in which he wanted to proceed originally would not make the accused guilty of causing obstruction to the persons so as to prevent him from going in that direction. The gist of the offence defined in section 339 is causing obstruction directly to a human being. To substantiate his contention, the Public Prosecutor relied on a judgment of Justice ramaswamy in Periah v. Chendraiah, (1952)1 M. L. J. 164, who after reviewing the case-law arrived at the decision that the act of the accused persons armed with sticks in causing obstruction to the complainant and his bulls and driving away the bulls fell within the scope of section 341, Indian Penal Code. I do not think that that decision has any application to the instant case. In the case cited, the prosecution case which was accepted by all the Courts was that the thirteen accused persons obstructed the complainant and his bulls from proceeding in a particular direction and drove away the bulls. It was not a case of merely driving away the bulls as in the present case. In the light of this discussion, I must hold that assuming the whole prosecution case is true no case of wrongful restraint has been made out against either of the petitioners.

( 11 ) IN the result the conviction of the petitioners is quashed and the fines if paid will be refunded. Conviction quashed.