N. H. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) [his Lordship after sustaining the conviction of the accused further observed :] ( 2 ) THIS brings me to the second facet of this revision application and there the petitioner stands on a firmer footing. Sec. 456 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as follows :-"456 When a person is convicted of an offence attended by criminal force or show of force or by criminal intimidation and it appears to the court that by such force or show of force or intimidation any person has been dispossessed of any immovable property the court may if it thinks fit order that possession of the same be restored to that person after evicting by force if necessary any other person who may be in possession of the property:provided that no such order shall be made by the court more than one month after the date of the conviction. This section has got two parts and those two adverbial clauses are the clauses dealing with the conditions precedent to the courts exercising powers of ordering restoration of possession to the person who has been evicted. Even a bare look at above-quoted sub-section shows that only when those two conditions precedent are satisfied the courts power to order restoration of possession ensues. Those conditions are: (i) a person must be convicted of an offence attended by criminal force or show of force or by criminal intimidation and (ii) it should appear to the court that the person who has been dispossessed has been so dispossessed by such force or show of force or intimidation. It is to be noted with pertinance that use of criminal force or show of force or criminal intimidation are appearing in both the clauses. As far as the second clause is concerned the informants case herein meets with that requirement as elaborated by this High Court in the case of Yashinkhan Ahmedkhan v. Hushanbhai Rajabhai 19 G. L. R. 175. The Division Bench has held that dispossession is complete only when the person entitled to possession is prevented from effecting his re-entry by use of criminal force or by show of force or by intimidation. The informants brother has categorically stated that on finding the room open despite the lock hanging there previously he went there to be criminally intimidated by the accused. The informants brother has categorically stated that on finding the room open despite the lock hanging there previously he went there to be criminally intimidated by the accused. Attempt to effect re-entry was made at that stage by the informants brother acting for his brother and at that stage or point of time the criminal intimidation was there and therefore it can be said that dispossession was there by criminal intimidation. The evidence of this witness regarding this intimidation was curiously enough left absolutely unchallenged and it is therefore reasonable to believe that testimony. I therefore hold that in the present case the condition no. 2 is satisfied. ( 3 ) THIS brings me to the consideration of the first condition. The accused has been convicted of the offence under sec. 453 I. P. C. that is house-breaking but house-breaking as defined in sec. 445 consists of various different kinds of acts. Barring 5th category where criminal force as defined in secs. 349 and 350 of the I. P. C. is specifically referred to the force or show of force do not figure in any other types of acts of house-breaking. The evidence on record bears out that the lock was broken open during the hours of night in a surreptious manner. So the house-breaking in this case was effected during hours of night in the manner styled as fourthly in sec. 445 which clause fourthly does not refer to use of force or show of force or intimidation. So it is difficult to say that the accused is convicted of offence in which criminal force or show of force or criminal intimidation attended the offending act. If any authority in support of this preposition is needed we can with advantage advert to the judgment of the Mysore High Court in the case of Ramsingh Babanji v. State of Mysore 1912 Criminal Law Journal 1212 where it has been specifically laid down that where the accused effects forcible entry into the complainants house by breaking open the lock in the absence of the complainant or anybody else on his behalf there is no use of force against the complainant. The very definition of the term force and `criminal force respectively in sec. 349 and 350 also presupposes the employment of force unto an individual or unto something which is closely connected with the individual. The very definition of the term force and `criminal force respectively in sec. 349 and 350 also presupposes the employment of force unto an individual or unto something which is closely connected with the individual. In other words force as understood in the criminal law has got reference to or nexus with a person and not to or with an inanimate article. Another case which can be referred to in this connection is the case of Gordhan Das v. State A. I. R. 1968 Raj. 241 where also it has been observed that where entry is effected by breaking open of the lock of a house in the absence of the complainant or his man the Magistrate would have no power to pass an order under sec. 456 of the Criminal Procedure Code (at that time there was corresponding sec. 522 (1) of the then Criminal Procedure Code. There is no difference between that erstwhile sec. 522 (1) and the present sec. 456 (1) ). ( 4 ) IN above view of the matter the order of the learned Magistrate directing restoration of possession cannot be sustained and to this extent the revision application will be required to be allowed. ( 5 ) MR. Desai the learned advocate appearing for the informant in this case however with appreciable earnestness urged that the accused would continue to enjoy his ill-gotten gains the law watching that enjoyment helplessly and the informant would be deprived of his property as he had been deprived of the return on his property right from 1970 onwards because he showed with reference to the evidence on record that barring the initial period of two months after the tenancy of 1970 the applicant had paid nothing till the legal eviction was effected through the court process and obviously the accused has been enjoying this property by effecting his entry into it on the date of the offence of this case. This is really unfortunate and is a pointer to the lacuna in law but this court being required to deal with criminal law under sec. 456 is helpless. This is really unfortunate and is a pointer to the lacuna in law but this court being required to deal with criminal law under sec. 456 is helpless. The remedy of this informant lies elsewhere in the civil forum and I am sure that if a proper appeal is made to that court in the suitable proceedings which the informant will now be constrained to initiate the court will take all the relevant factors into account and see that substantial justice is meted out to the informant as early as possible. ( 6 ) THE result is that the revision application stands partly rejected in so far as conviction and sentence are concerned but stands allowed in so far as the order of restoration of possession is concerned which order is hereby set at naught. The accused to surrender to his bail latest by 1-11-81. Application partly allowed. .