[1] This Rule must be made absolute on the ground on which it was issued. The explanation of the Magistrate admits that there is no finding that the accused s claim was in the nature of a sham or pretext. It may have been or it may not have been so, the only finding is that the land was in the possession of the complainant. The placing of haystacks and manure in another man s land need not necessarily be annoyance. It is not annoyance in law. It may be annoyance in fact. If it is annoyance in fact, then it must be clearly found in the judgment not only that it is annoyance but that it was intended by the accused to be annoyance. There is no such finding in this judgment and there is no other possible ground upon which a purely civil trespass can be treated as criminal trespass. The distinction between civil trespass and criminal trespass is one which is lost sight of by too many of the Subordinate Magistrates.

[2] The conviction and sentence are set aside and the fine, if paid, will be refunded.