JUDGMENT : B.K. Patra, J. - The Petitioners were prosecuted on charges under Sections 143, 447, 294 and 426, Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rayagada and convicted u/s 447, Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. 2. At about 7. 30 p.m. on 4-111968, there was a quarrel between Petitioner No. 1 S. Donganna and one G. Neelakantham, the brother-in-law of the complainant p.w. 1. P.W. 1 went to the place and obviously intervened in the quarrel on behalf of his brother-in-law. Thereupon, the Petitioners were alleged to have chased him from the spot. Out of fear, p.w. 1 ran away into his house and bolted the door from inside. It is the prosecution case that the Petitioners in a body went inside the complainant?s house, knocked at the door and in the process damaged it and abused p.w. 1 in filthy language. P.W. 1 lodged information at the nearest out-post on 7-11-1968. After necessary investigation, the Petitioners and two others, who are said to have been acquitted by the trial Court, were placed on trial. 3. The Petitioners denied having committed the offence. Their case is that previous to the alleged occurrence one Adiamma had filed a criminal case against p.w. 1 u/s 323, Indian Penal Code in which some of the present Petitioners figured as witnesses for Adiamma and the case ended in conviction of p.w. 1 and that consequently p.w. 1 has foisted this case against the Petitioners. 4. The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that on the night of occurrence when p.w. 1 intervened in the quarrel between his brother-in-law and Petitioner No. 1, e was chased by the Petitioners and when he out of fear ran away to his house and bolted his door from inside, all the Petitioners had trespassed into his house. He did not find sufficient evidence in support of the prosecution case that the Petitioners either abused p.w. 1 in filthy language or that they caused any damage to his door. He did not also find sufficient evidence to show that the Petitioners were members of an unlawful assembly. He did not find sufficient evidence in support of the prosecution case that the Petitioners either abused p.w. 1 in filthy language or that they caused any damage to his door. He did not also find sufficient evidence to show that the Petitioners were members of an unlawful assembly. In the result, therefore, he convicted the Petitioners only on the charge u/s 447, Indian Penal Code. 5. It is argued by Mr. Raju appearing for the Petitioners that since the Petitioners had been acquitted of the charges u/s 143, 294 and 426, Indian Penal Code there can be no justification for their conviction u/s 447, Indian Penal Code. This is an argument which is impossible for me to accept. An offence u/s 447, Indian Penal Code is distinct and separate from the other offences for which charges had been framed against the Petitioner. If for any reason, the Court below was not fully convinced that the Petitioners were either members of an unlawful assembly or had caused any mischief to p.w. 1?s door or that they abused him in filthy language, there seems to be no reason why he cannot convict them u/s 447, Indian Penal Code if he is satisfied on the evidence placed before him that the Petitioners actually trespassed into p.w. 1?s house. 6. Mr. Raju next attempted to show that the evidence of some of the important witnesses for the prosecution is discrepant and could not have been accepted by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate in his judgment had referred to these alleged discrepancies and had opined that they are not so very material as to discredit the testimony of the witnesses and I find be has correctly assessed the evidence. The delay in lodging the First Information Report has also been satisfactorily explained. 7. In the result, I find no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed.