JUDGMENT : 1. Kunji Lal and four other persons have been convicted of an offence under S. 447, I.P.C., and sentenced to fines varying in amount. The facts very briefly are these: Seven parsons in the village of Chirgaon have obtained a lease from the Collector of Jhansi entitling them to collect weighing dues in Chirgaon for a period of ten years. The accused have not attempted to enter upon the land on which hitherto collections for weighing dues had been made. They have gone on to a separate piece of ground and there set up their weighing machines and collected weighing dues. The ground on which they have committed these acts is in the actual physical possession of one Shankar who is not the zamindar of the village at all. Shankar apparently has no objection to the dues being collected on this land. 2. But the contention is that the accused have entered upon property of which the zamindars of Chirgaon are in possession and that the acts of the accused are acts done with intent to annoy the zamindars or the Collector of Jhansi to whom the zamindars have leased their zamindari rights. This Court In the matter of Gobind Prasad, [1878-80] 2 All. 465, a very similar case, has held that possession contemplated and intended by S. 441, I.P.C., must be actual possession within the meaning of Section 530 of the then current Cr PC, Act 10 of 1872. I am not prepared to dissent from that ruling. Criminal trespass in the present case has not been proved as against the accused. The convictions are set aside, and the fines or a portion thereof, if paid, will be refunded.