ORDER Rajeshwari Prasad, J. - The Petitioners were convicted by a Special Magistrate I Class Agra u/s 448 IPC and a sentence of fine of Rs. 50/- each was awarded to them. While convicting them, the learned trial Magistrate also directed that they should deliver possession of the room in question to the complainant. 2. A petition in revision was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, which was dismissed by the Civil and Sessions Judge, Agra. It appears that the revision petition was directed against that part of the order of the trial Magistrate by which the Petitioners were directed to deliver possession of the room to the complainant. 3. The present revision petition is directed against that order of the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Agra. 4. According to the prosecution, the accused took wrongful possession of a certain room belonging to the complainant. The prosecution also produced evidence to show that possession was taken by the accused forcibly and that the accused also extended threats to Liaqat Husain, who protested against their wrongful act. The evidence produced by the prosecution found favour with the trial Magistrate and the learned Magistrate, therefore, proceeded to convict the Petitioners and directed them to give possession of the room in question to the complainant. 5. In support of this revision petition, it has been urged that the Petitioners were acquitted of the charge of the offence u/s 452 IPC and that the order of conviction was u/s 448 IPC simpliciter. It was urged that before Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be invoked, it had to be established that there had been a conviction for an offence which was attended by criminal force or show of force or by criminal intimidation. Inasmuch as the Petitioners were acquitted of the charge u/s 452 IPC and inasmuch as for committing offence u/s 448 IPC, show or use of force was not necessary, Sec 522 Code of Criminal Procedure would not be applicable to the facts of the case. 6. I do not find it possible to accept that contention. For the application of Section 522 Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not necessary that the offence, for which conviction had been made, should be one which involved criminal force or as one of its ingredients, show of force or criminal intimidation. 6. I do not find it possible to accept that contention. For the application of Section 522 Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not necessary that the offence, for which conviction had been made, should be one which involved criminal force or as one of its ingredients, show of force or criminal intimidation. It is not necessary that the offence should be cine of which criminal force or show of force or criminal intimidation was an ingredient under the provision of the IPC. Section 522 is equally applicable to a case where the conviction is for an offence of which, though, force is not an ingredient under the law, yet, on the facts of the case, in committing that offence, force or criminal intimidation or show of force had been used. My view finds support from a Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Mohini Mohan Chowdhry v. Harendra Chandra Chowdhry ILR 31 Cal. 691. The Full Bench which decided that case consisted of six Hon'ble Judges of that Court. The view taken in that case was that there were no reasons for putting a narrow construction upon the language of Section 522 Code of Criminal Procedure. If the offence for which conviction had been made had been committed and force or show of force, had been used, for committing that offence, Section 522 Code of Criminal Procedure would be applicable on the facts of that case. A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahabir and Ors. v. Rex through Shamdhari AIR 1949 All. 228 . It was observed that criminal force or show of force or criminal intimidation u/s 522 Code of Criminal Procedure need not necessarily be an ingredient of the offence at all. 7. The learned Sessions Judge has found that that evidence on record established that forcible delivery of possession was taken by the Applicants and that when opposite party Liaqat Husain came to protest, he was threatened. That being so, it is obvious that in committing the offence u/s 448 IPC, the Petitioners did use or at any rate show of force. The direction for delivery of possession of room is consequently not improper. 8. The petition in revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed.