JUDGMENT P.N. Goel, J. 1. THIS is an application under Section 482 CrPC. Applicants pray that proceedings in criminal case No. 381 of 1911, Govind Ram v. A. M. Khusroo pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate III, Aligarh be quashed. Govind Ram has filed a complaint under Section 447 IPC Before mentioning the facts of the case., the scope of Section 441 IPC which defines the term "Criminal Trespass" be indicated. Section 441 as amended in the State of U. P. reads as follows :- "Whoever enters into or upon property in possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult on annoy any person in possession of such property, or, having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person or with intent to commit an offence, possession or making unauthorised use of such property fails to withdraw from such properly or its possession or use, when called upon to do so by that another person by notice in writing, duly served upon him, by the date specified in the notice, is said to commit 'criminal trespass'." 2. IT will be seen from the above that entry upon the property in possession of another person per se is not an offence. Such an entry will be an offence in 3 cases mentioned hereinafter :- (1) if the entry is with the intention to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession, (2) if having lawfully entered upon the property, unlawfully remains there with two intents- (i) to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in (ii) to commit an offence (3) having entered into or upon such property with the intention of taking unauthorised possession or making unauthorised use of such property fails to withdraw from the property after notice by the person in possession. IT will be further noticed that for the applicability of the third position 2 ingredients must co-exist : (a) having entered into or upon the property with the intention of taking unauthorised possession or making unauthorised use of such property, and (b) fails to withdraw from such property, despite notice by the person in possession In the instant case Govind Ram, complainant, is Karinda of Smt. Shaharzadi Tilat Alim and Km. Shahur Naz Masood, daughters of Anwar Masood who claims to be the owner of the disputed land No. 43/1 and 44/3 of khata No. 18 of Dodpur Mafi, Police Station Civil Lines, Aligarh. The allegations of the complaint filed in April 1977 by Govind Ram may be stated. 3. IN the year 1968 Govind passed on the road by the side of the disputed land and saw that fencing of barbed wire on angle iron was made around the land. Thereupon he gave a telegram to the Vice Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University. The Vice Chancellor informed him that fencing was not done by any person of the University. Later on Smt. Shaharzadi Tilat Alim who was living outside came to Aligarh and tried to ascertain facts from Sri A. M. Khusroo, applicant No. 1. All the four applicants told her that they had not got the fencing done. Thereafter on 14-3-1977 Smt. Shaharzadi Tilat Alim gave notice to the four applicants. In reply to this notice the applicants 1 to 4 admitted that the fencing was got done by the Muslim University. Thereupon another notice dated 6-4-1977 was given to the applicants 1 to 4 requiring them to remove the fencing. But the applicants 1 to 4 refused to comply. It is on the basis of these allegations that complaint under Section 447 read with Section 34 IPC was filed. 4. IN petition under Section 482 CrPC it has been alleged that Sri A.M. Khusroo, applicant No. 1, became the Vice Chancellor on 29-9-1974, Sri S. M. Shafi, applicant No 2 became Pro Vice Chancellor on 20-12-1974, Sri A. J. Rajendran, applicant No. 3 became Finance Officer on 10-4 -1974 and Sri K. B. Siddiqui, applicant No. 4, became Estate Officer from 22-9-1969. This allegation is supported by an affidavit of Sri Mohd. Ahsan (vide para 20). Sri Govind Ram has filed counter affidavit. He has stated in paragraph 12 that paragraph 20 of the affidavit of Mohd. Ahsan required no reply as it was irrelevant. It will be noticed from the above that applicants 1 to 4 are being prosecuted under Section 447 IPC because they did not comply with the notice dated 6-4-1977 given by the two ladies. 5. He has stated in paragraph 12 that paragraph 20 of the affidavit of Mohd. Ahsan required no reply as it was irrelevant. It will be noticed from the above that applicants 1 to 4 are being prosecuted under Section 447 IPC because they did not comply with the notice dated 6-4-1977 given by the two ladies. 5. IT is evident that the 4 applicants were not holding any office or the offices mentioned in the complaint in the year 1968 in which the act of trespass had become complete. The question therefore is whether the applicants are liable for the act of trespass made by some persons on behalf of the University in the year 1968 in which year they were not the office holders of the University. IT is true that notice was given to them and they refused to remove the fencing. 6. AS stated above there are two ingredients for the applicability of the third contingency of Section 441, viz (1) having entered into or upon such property with the intention of taking unauthorised possession or making unauthorised use of such property and (2) fails to withdraw from such property after notice. In the instant case the complaint does not allege that applicants 1 to 4 had entered upon the property with the intention of taking unauthorised possession or making, unauthorised use precisely speaking this act was done by some persons other than the applicants 1 to 4. In view of this, the first limb of this provision is wanting in the case. The applicants cannot be prosecuted simply because the 2nd limb came into existence. The Magistrate has not issued process against Sri A. M. Khusroo, applicant No. 1. He has issued process against applicants Nos. 2 to 4. 7. IN view of what has been stated above, it is clear that none of the 4 applicants can personally be prosecuted for committing criminal trespass. Correctly speaking there is not a word in the complaint to indicate that the applicants Nos. 1 to 4 had entered upon the property of the two ladies with the intention of taking unauthorised possession or making unauthorised use. The only allegation that they refused to comply with the notice to withdraw from the property is not sufficient for their prosecution under Section 447 IPC. 8. 1 to 4 had entered upon the property of the two ladies with the intention of taking unauthorised possession or making unauthorised use. The only allegation that they refused to comply with the notice to withdraw from the property is not sufficient for their prosecution under Section 447 IPC. 8. IN the result the application is allowed and the proceedings in criminal case No. 381 of 1977, Govind Ram v. A. M. Khusroo and others, under Section 447 IPC pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate III, Aligarh, are quashed. Application allowed.