JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi dated 19-7-1976 by which he allowed the appeal of the accused-respondent and acquitted him of the offence punishable under Section 447, Indian Penal Code. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus. 2. On 31-10-1969, the complainant Gulab filed a complaint under Sections 447, 448, 454 and 380, Indian Penal Code against the accused-respondent Anand Singh in the Court of Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Bali to the effect, in short, the accused Anand Singh demolished his "Dhalia" and removed his articles from his disputed plot and on 24th August, 1969, the accused asked him to file a complaint against him when he protested against it. After preliminary enquiry, the learned Magistrate framed charges under Sections 379 and 447, Indian Penal Code against the accused. After full trial, he acquitted him under Section 379, Indian Penal Code and convicted under Section 447, Indian Penal Code. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi set aside the conviction of the accused under Section 447, Indian Penal Code on the ground that the complainant has failed to prove that the trespass was committed by the accused with an intention for annoy, insult or intimidate him. 3. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the complainant-appellant that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has seriously erred in holding that offence under Section 447, Indian Penal Code was not proved for want of evidence regarding insult, annoy or intimidation. He contended that it is well proved from the evidence on record that the accused Anand Singh committed trespass with an intention to insult, annoy or intimidate the complainant Gulab. 4. The learned Counsel for the accused-respondent Anand Singh duly supported the order under appeal. 5. Arguments of the learned Counsel for both the parties have been heard and the record has been perused. Prior to filing the complaint, the complainant submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police, Pali, which is available on the record. In the end, it is stated in it that the accused Anand Singh has illegally occupied the disputed plot after removing his goods valuing Rs. 1,500/-. In the complaint, it has not been mentioned that the accused trespassed upon the disputed plot with an intention to insult, annoy or intimidate him. In the end, it is stated in it that the accused Anand Singh has illegally occupied the disputed plot after removing his goods valuing Rs. 1,500/-. In the complaint, it has not been mentioned that the accused trespassed upon the disputed plot with an intention to insult, annoy or intimidate him. The Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Bali framed charge under Section 447, Indian Penal Code. It would be best to quote it here. It runs as under: " vkius fnukad 21-8-69 o 24-8-1969 ds chp ekStk lqesjiqj esa iqjkM+ ds jkLrs ij eqlEeh xqykc ds dCtk'kqn okys ij dCtk djus dh fu;r ls vijkf/kd vR;kpkj fd;k gSA " The prosecution witnesses also do not say that the accused Anand Singh committed trespass upon the disputed plot with an intention to insult, annoy or intimidate the complaint Gulab. In their statements they have simply deposed that the disputed plot was in possession of the complainant, "Dhalia" was standing on it, his articles were lying there and the accused demolished "Dhalia" and removed the articles and occupied it. As already observed, the learned Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Bali acquitted the accused under Section 379, Indian Penal Code. From such an evidence on record, it cannot be said that the accused Anand Singh committed criminal trespass as defined in Section 441, Indian Penal Code. At the most it is a case of civil trespass. Thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi rightly acquitted the accused Anand Singh under Section 447, Indian Penal Code. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******