J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-accused has questioned the legality and validity of the conviction order passed against him for the offence punishable under Section. 341 of the Indian Penal Code (the lpc for short) by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Gandevi in Criminal Case No. 282 of 1081 which was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge at Bulsar in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1982 by invoking the aids of the provisions of Section 307 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (the Code for short hereinafter ). ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 Mr. Manibhai Kalyanji Kevat is the original complainant who had filed criminal complaint against the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341 451 and 420 of the IPC On assessment and analysis of the evidence the Trial Court held the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Section 341 of the IPC and awarded a sentence of fine of Rs. 200 and in default to undergo imprisonment for 15 days in the aforesaid criminal trial on 31 which was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1982. The appeal was summarily dismissed at the admission stage on 15-10-1982. Hence this revision at the instance of the original accused. ( 3 ) IT is true that the jurisdic tional sweep of the revisional Court is very much circumscribed. Unless and until illegality perversity or misreading of the evidence is pointed out or spelt out in the record the revisional Court will not be in a position to interfere with the findings of the Courts below. Having examined the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the present case carefully and after dispassionately hearing both the sides this Court is convinced that the impugned conviction order recorded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Sessions Court is unjust and perverse. ( 4 ) A few relevant material facts may be stated at this stage. The complainant was working as an Organiser in one Gandevi Taluka Nira Tadgol and Tadpadarth Producers Co-operative Society Ltd. at Billimora at the relevant time. The said Co-operative Society was a tenant in respect of the disputed property situated at Billimora for an yearly rent of Rs. 180. The Society was occupying the said property as a tenant since more than 22 years. The said Co-operative Society was a tenant in respect of the disputed property situated at Billimora for an yearly rent of Rs. 180. The Society was occupying the said property as a tenant since more than 22 years. It was hired by the Society from the original owner Naranbhai Kikabhai. The wife of the accused Manibehn became the owner of the said property 7-8 years prior to the date of filing of the complaint. The complainant alleged that the accused took the possession of the rented premises popularly known as Nira-Kendra assuring that the possession will be restored after the placement of iron sheets on the roof. It was the allegation of the complainant that the possession of the rented premises was not returned by the accused as assured and therefore notice in that behalf was given by the complainant to the accused. A reminder was also sent. However the possession was not returned. It was also alleged that the accused had removed the stair-case under the pretext of changing it. Thus according to the complainant the accused had illegally taken the possession of the rented property and had committed the aforesaid offence. The complaint filed by the complainant was sent for the enquiry under Section 156 (3) of the Code. Subsequently the accused was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC. The accused pleaded not gulity. According to the defence of the accused there was a civil dispute in respect of the terrace and there was no commission of any offence. ( 5 ) ON appreciation of the facts and circumstances and the evidence of the prosecution the learned Trial Magistrate found that the accused had taken the key of the rented premises with criminal intention and thereby committed an offence of wrongful restraint punishable under Section 341 of the IPC. The accused was therefore awarded sentence of fine of Rs. 200 and in default to undergo 15 days imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC on 31/07/1982. The conviction and the sentence order recorded by the Trial Court came to be confirmed in the aforesaid Criminal Appeal by the learned Sessions Judge on 15-10-1982 at the admission stage by disposing of the said appeal. ( 6 ) SECTION 341 of the IPC prescribes punishment for wrongful restraint. Section 339 of the IPC prescribes offence of wrongful restraint. The conviction and the sentence order recorded by the Trial Court came to be confirmed in the aforesaid Criminal Appeal by the learned Sessions Judge on 15-10-1982 at the admission stage by disposing of the said appeal. ( 6 ) SECTION 341 of the IPC prescribes punishment for wrongful restraint. Section 339 of the IPC prescribes offence of wrongful restraint. It would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 339 of the PC which reads as:"339 Wrongful restraint: Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed is said wrongfully to restraint that person". ( 7 ) IT could be seen from the aforesaid definition that the wrongful restraint keep a man out of the place where he wishes to be and has a right to be. Section 339 of the IPC relates to voluntary obstruction. The obstruction must be such as to prevent the complainant or any person proceeding in a direction which he has a right to proceed. In order to hold an accused guilty for the aforesaid offence the prosecution is bound to establish that there was a voluntary obstruction by a person and that obstruction was to prevent that person from proceeding in a direction which he has a right to proceed. ( 8 ) IT appears that the Courts below failed to appreciate that there was a bona fide dispute of civil nature. Notices were exchanged between the parties and it is stated that civil suit was filed by the complainant. Apart from the fact that there was a bona fide dispute of civil nature between the parties the prosecution failed to prove the material ingredients attracting the rigours of the provisions of Section 341 of the IPC. The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had voluntarily caused obstruction and had a criminal intention while taking the key of the rented premises. ( 9 ) NO doubt it is true that the criminal prosecution cannot be thrown over-board on the ground that there was a civil suit pending between the parties. Same set of acts may give rise to both civil and criminal liability. ( 9 ) NO doubt it is true that the criminal prosecution cannot be thrown over-board on the ground that there was a civil suit pending between the parties. Same set of acts may give rise to both civil and criminal liability. However it is incumbent upon the Court to insist and examine as to whether the material ingredients constituting the offence of wrongful restraint are established beyond reasonable doubt or not. ( 10 ) HAVING examined the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Courts below failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. The impugned order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge is not only unjust but perverse. Therefore the revision is required to be allowed quashing the impugned orders. ( 11 ) IN the result the revision is allowed. The impugned order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Gandevi in Criminal Case No. 282 of 1981 on 31 and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1982 is quashed and set aside. The amount of fine if any paid shall be refunded to the accused-the petitioner herein. Rule made absolute. Order accordingly. .