JUDGMENT Sir George Knox and Piggott, JJ. - Ram Prasad and Bhagwan Das, who have been convicted of an offence u/s 297 of the Indian Penal Code, and have been fined under that section, and in addition were bound over to keep the peace u/s 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have put in a petition of revision and ask this Court to revise the conviction and sentence on the ground that the facts do not constitute an offence u/s 297, of the Indian Penal Code. The second plea contained in the petition of revision was not pressed. The facts found are that the accused went to a grove in Sindhauli to demarcate a certain share in the grove which had been purchased by the petitioner, Ram Prasad, a Bania, who has acquired a share in the village of Sindhauli. In the course of the demarcation the petitioner had dug up certain graves, which were in this bagh, and exposed the bones of the persons buried there, in spite of the remonstrances of the relations of the persons buried. The persons buried were Syeds, residents of the village of Sindhauli. There is nothing to show that the particular portion in this grove had been either by act of court or act of private parties set apart and allotted to Ram Prasad as the particular share of the grove to which he individually was entitled. We mention this to show that the question has not risen before us in this case as to what rights, if any the residents in the village who have been in the habit of burying their dead in the grove may or may not have acquired even as against the proprietor of the portion of the land in which the grove lies. The argument before us has taken the line that Earn Prasad, the petitioner (and Bhagwan Das, his servant), being a joint owner in this grove, had not even on the facts proved, committed any trespass on the land in question. We have heard all that the learned Counsel could urge on behalf of the petitioners. No precedent was cited to us in support of the contention that a person who enters upon land belonging to himself with the intention of doing a wrongful act to a joint owner does not commit trespass. We have heard all that the learned Counsel could urge on behalf of the petitioners. No precedent was cited to us in support of the contention that a person who enters upon land belonging to himself with the intention of doing a wrongful act to a joint owner does not commit trespass. We know of no authority which carries the case so far as this. It appears to us that a joint owner of land who enters upon the land with the intention or knowledge that he was about to do an" act which was wrongful to his fellow-owners, does commit trespass. We are not in any way concerned with what is known in the Penal Code as a criminal trespass. That is a separate form of trespass which has its own express definition. One of the Judges of this Bench had to consider the case on a previous occasion, namely, Queen-Empress Vs. Subhan and Another, (1896) ILR (All) 395 in which a person went upon a property with the knowledge of the owner and apparently with his wish that certain graves should be ploughed. The case is, of course, not exactly in point, but it was there held that trespass could be committed on the land entered upon with the knowledge and consent of the owner. We find no reason to interfere with the view taken by the learned Judge of the court below, and we dismiss this petition.