G. S. N. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) THE Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, vide his judgment and order dated 31-5-1978, acquitted the accused Chaman Singh, Sahab Singh, Bhup Singh and Vishnu Datt on the charges under S. 448, 427, IPC. Therefore, the complainant has approached this Court by way of the present appeal. The appeal has been admitted and permission granted. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case started on the basis of a complaint filed by Ved Prakash (appellant) alleging that the accused committed trespass in his house on 5-7-1976 at about 7 p. m. along with 15 other persons. Without any authority, they broke open the lock of his house and took possession of the same forcibly. The articles kept therein were thrown and damaged by them. They were misutilizing all these goods belong ing to the complainants daughter, for which some separate proceedings would be launched. The com plainants wife and daughter who were not present at the house, after hearing the noise rushed to the complainants house. They also informed P. S. Kot wali by telephone. The complainant also arrived there and asked the accused not to commit any crime of that nature. But instead they abused him and asked him to keep mum. The complainant was thus terrorised. The loss caused to the complainant was to the tune of Rs. 500. 00 and above. On the same day, a report was lodged with S. O. , Kotwali. But no action was taken. The illegal possession of the accused continues. Therefore, this complaint was lodged on 6-8-1976, i. e. , 31 days after the actual and alleged incident. ( 3 ) IN support of his case, the complainant examined himself as PW 1. He has narrated the prosecution story as contained in the complaint. In the cross-examination he has admitted that this house was allotted to accused prior to the incident. Further he admitted that against the allotment order, he had filed an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate Court. However, a writ is pending in the High Court. ( 4 ) PW 3, Rameshwar Dayal reached the spot after hearing the alarm and saw the accused breaking open the lock and entering the house of the com plainant. He also saw the goods of the complainant scattered outside. ( 5 ) PW 4 Ved Prakash has given an eye witness account of the occurrence. ( 4 ) PW 3, Rameshwar Dayal reached the spot after hearing the alarm and saw the accused breaking open the lock and entering the house of the com plainant. He also saw the goods of the complainant scattered outside. ( 5 ) PW 4 Ved Prakash has given an eye witness account of the occurrence. ( 6 ) PW 5 Sumitra Devi is the wife of the com plainant. She has also said that in her presence, the accused committed trespass and caused damage to her house. ( 7 ) THE accused in their statements under S. 313, Cr. P. C. have denied the allegations against them. They have said that on account of ill-will and closeness with the complainant, the witnesses have deposed against them. Accused Vishnu Dutt was a counsel against the complainant in the allotment case. According to him, he has been falsely implicated on account of this fact. 7a. After a threadbare analysis of the evidence and circumstances on the record, the learned C. J. M. concluded that both the charges against the accused had not been proved. He, accordingly, acquitted them honourably. ( 8 ) THEREFORE, the complainant, Ved Prakash has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal as noted above. ( 9 ) I have heard Sri S. A. Shah, learned counsel for the appellant in great detail and the learned A. G. A. and perused the record. I find that there is no force in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed. ( 10 ) THE offence of criminal trespass, has been defined in S. 441 as duly amended by U. P. Act 31 of 1961. It runs as under : -"441. Criminal Trespass - Whoever enters into or upon property in possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlaw fully, remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, or, having entered into or upon such property, whether before or after the coming into force of the Criminal Law (U. P. Amendment) Act 1961, with the intention of taking unauthorised possession or making unauthorised use of such pro perty fails to withdraw from such property or its possession or use. When called upon to do so by that another person by notice in writing, dully served upon him, by the date specified in the notice, is said to commit criminal trespass. " ( 11 ) THE main ingredia of this offence can be summarised as under : -"1. The entry upon others property. 2. With intent to commit an offence or to inti midate, insult or annoy. 3. Intention should be of taking unauthorised possession of such property. 4. And when called upon to do that, i. e. , to vacate by notice in writing, duly served upon him by the date specified in the notice he does not comply. " ( 12 ) THEREFORE, in order to succeed in a case of criminal trespass punishable under S. 448, I. P. C. , those ingredias should be fulfilled and if any ingredia is not satisfied, the charge will fail. ( 13 ) IN this light, we have to examine the prose cution case in order to see as to whether these ingredias have been fulfilled by the prosecution evidence. ( 14 ) PW 1 Ved Prakash in the cross-examination dated 31-8-1977 admitted in the last line that before this occurrence, the allotment in favour of the accused of his house had taken place. On the second floor towards the south, west the portion was allotted to Chaman Singh accused. On the third floor north western portion was allotted to Bhup Singh accused. On the third floor, north-eastern portion was allotted to Sahab Singh accused. These accused are in possession. This way, when an allottee takes posses sion over the allotted portion of the landlords house on the basis of a valid allotment order in his favour, it cannot be said that the entry was with an intent to commit an offence or intimidate, insult or annoy the landlord. He further admits that against the allotment order, in favour of the accused, he had filed an appeal. But the appeal was dismissed, meaning thereby, that the stamp of validity was put upon the allotment order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in favour of the accused. He further admits that against the allotment order, in favour of the accused, he had filed an appeal. But the appeal was dismissed, meaning thereby, that the stamp of validity was put upon the allotment order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in favour of the accused. Thus the order of allotment cannot be said to be illegal in any manner whatsoever, even though a writ is pending in the High Court against the order of allotment as well as order of the appellate Court, although there is no such record before this Court today. Further there is no evidence on the record to prove that in the writ jurisdiction, the High Court has stayed the allotment order in favour of the accused persons. So till today, it has to be presumed that on the basis of a valid allotment order, the accused have taken possession and made entry in the house of the complainant on the date alleged, i. e. , 5-7-1976. This way, it is abundantly clear that this entry was not unlawful. It was not intended to cause any insult, intimidation or annoyance to the landlord because the allottee cannot have any such purpose. His only motive is to enter the house allotted to him and enjoy a peaceful possession. By causing inti midation or annoyance to the landlord, a tenant cannot enjoy this peaceful possession over the allotted portion. So basically it will be difficult in absence of any solid evidence on record to believe that the intention of the allottees was to commit any offence or to insult, intimidate or annoy the complainant or his family members. ( 15 ) ANOTHER important ingredia of the case under S. 441, IPC as amended by U. P. Act 31 of 1961 is that before approaching the criminal court, the com plainant should call upon by a notice in writing the trespassers to vacate the trespassed premises within a specified period. It is only upon the expiry of the specified period in the notice, that a cause of action accrues to the complainant to move the criminal court. In absence of any such notice the case cannot proceed. Thus there is absolutely no evidence avail able on record to show that the complainant, had at any time asked the accused person to vacate the premises by a written notice. In absence of any such notice the case cannot proceed. Thus there is absolutely no evidence avail able on record to show that the complainant, had at any time asked the accused person to vacate the premises by a written notice. Therefore, on this ground alone, the entire charge must fail. ( 16 ) AFTER coming to this conclusion that the accused did not commit any house trespass as alleged by the prosecution, I find that the learned lower court was justified in holding that the charge under S. 448, IPC was not made out. ( 17 ) NOW coming to the charge under S. 427, IPC, the learned lower Court has properly appraised the evidence and circumstances available on the record. ( 18 ) IN the initial complaint, the details of the damaged property and goods were not given but when the complaint was filed after due consultation after a month the details were provided. So it is clearly after thought and cannot be given any credence. ( 19 ) THERE is no evidence available on the record to prove as to what were the goods damaged by the accused. Rather, the evidence is that the goods were lying scattered. It means that the complainant was at liberty to collect his goods. So the charge under S. 427, IPC is also not made out. The offence of mischief has been defined in S. 425, IPC as under : -"mischief- Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, cause the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief". " ( 20 ) THE main ingredia of this offence is that there should be an intent to cause wrongful loss and damage to anybodys property, (2) with that intent the destruction and damage should be caused resulting in diminishing of the value or utility of the property. As observed by the learned lower Court no such evidence was led that the accused had an intention to cause mischief or they caused any destruction to the property of the complainant, resulting in its diminishing in value. As observed by the learned lower Court no such evidence was led that the accused had an intention to cause mischief or they caused any destruction to the property of the complainant, resulting in its diminishing in value. Simply because the goods were put outside the allotted premises in order to facilitate entry on the basis of an allotment order in favour of the accused, it cannot be said that the accused caused any damage or loss to the property of the com plainant. As observed earlier there was no obstruction caused by the accused in the complainants effort to collect his goods. So the main ingredia of the offence of mischief defined under S. 425, IPC has not been made out. ( 21 ) THE learned lower court has properly scanned the evidence and circumstances of the record. He had the privilege to watch the demeanour of the witnesses the facility not extended to the appellate court. In absence of any mis-direction on his part; the appre ciation of the evidence at the hands of the trial court should get due weight. I have gone through the evidence myself and find myself in complete con currence with the conclusions drawn by the learned lower court. ( 22 ) THERE is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and that stands further fortified once a considered and reasoned order of acquittal has been recorded. I fail to find any mis-direction on the part of the learned lower court. Thus the judgment and order recorded by the learned lower court does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. The result is that the appeal must fail. ( 23 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 31-5-1978 passed by the learned C. J. M. Muzaffarnagar, acquitting the ac cused is hereby confirmed. Appeal dismissed. .