Judgment : The complainant has preferred an appeal aggrieved against the judgment made in C.A.No.299 of 1990 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, North Arcot District, dated 18.4.1991 and reversed the judgment made in C.C.No.651 of 1989 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Ambur, dated 6.12.1990 and found the accused respondents not guilty of the offence under Sec.448, I.P.C. and acquitted them. 2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The complainant P.W.J is a resident of Ambur and he had purchased door Nos.70 and 71 Main Bazaar, Ambur for valid consideration from the 1st accused on 17.2.1988. The possession of the properties continued to remain with P.W.1 Ex.P-1 is the copy of sale deed. On 17.2.1988 when P.W.1 took possession of the properties, there were four shops occupied by the tenants viz., Govindaraju, Balakrishnan, Ramasamy and Shanmugam. Moreover, the electric service connection, the municipal tax were also changed in the name of the complainant and he alone was collecting the rent also. In fact, the first accused has also executed another document enabling P. W. 1 to collect rent from the tenants and Ex.P-2 is the said document. There was no construction in the upstairs. There is an entrance in between the shops leading to the upstair portions and it was covered with a shutter door kept under lock and key by P.W.1 There is no other entrance leading to the upstairs. During November, 1988, P.W.1 left for Agra and returned only on 8.12.1988. He noticed that a thatched roof was put up in the upstair portion of the shops hearing door Nos.70 and 71 unauthorisedly by the accused. On enquiry P.W.1 came to know that on 2.12.1988 the accused break open the lock and went to the upstair portion and put up the thatched roof. 3. P.W.2 is none other than the father of P.W.1, when P.Ws.1 and 2 enquired with the accused, they threatened to assault them with deadly weapons. They gave a complaint with Ambur police station but no action was taken and, hence, they were constrained to file a private complaint. P.W.2 also supported the case of P.W.1 The complainant filed the private complaint against the accused under Secs.448 and 506 (ii), I.P.C. and two witnesses were examined on the side of the complainant. They gave a complaint with Ambur police station but no action was taken and, hence, they were constrained to file a private complaint. P.W.2 also supported the case of P.W.1 The complainant filed the private complaint against the accused under Secs.448 and 506 (ii), I.P.C. and two witnesses were examined on the side of the complainant. The trial court found the accused guilty under Sec.448, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs.500 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and aggrieved against this, the accused preferred C.A.No.299 of 1990 on the file of District Court, North Arcot, Vellore, and the appeal was allowed by the lower appellate court finding the accused not guilty under Sec.448, I.P.C. and acquitted them and aggrieved against this, the complainant has come forward with the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant stated that the lower appellate court was not justified in passing an order of acquittal reversing the finding given by the trial court. There is enough evidence to come to the conclusion that P.W.1 is the owner of the properties and possession was also taken by him. The copy of the sale deed Ex.P-1 has been filed into the court and there was absolutely no delay in giving the complaint. The possession of the properties was only with P.W.1 and this being so, the accused have trespassed into the property and put up a thatched roof in the upstair portion by breaking open the lock leading to the staircases. The non-examination of other witnesses would not affect the case of the complainant. P.Ws.1 and 2 went to Agra and returned only on 8.12.1988 and on enquiry, they came to know the part played by the accused. No doubt, the accused have subsequently filed a civil suit before the civil court and this will not be a bar to the criminal action taken by the complainant, However, the learned counsel for the accused stated that there was no independent witness to corroborate the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2. Admittedly, there is a civil suit relating to the property, and unless it is decided in one way or other, no criminal prosecution is possible. In fact, P.Ws.1 and 2 have not actually such the part played by the accused and only hearsay evidence, the complaint was laid. Admittedly, there is a civil suit relating to the property, and unless it is decided in one way or other, no criminal prosecution is possible. In fact, P.Ws.1 and 2 have not actually such the part played by the accused and only hearsay evidence, the complaint was laid. The lower appellate court was justified in reversing the finding given by the trial court and passed an order of acquittal and, hence, no interference is called for. 5. Ex.P-1 is the sale deed by which P.W.1 is said to have purchased the door Nos.70 and 71 situated in main bazaar at Ambur from the 1st accused. P.W.1 categorically stated that possession of the property was also taken by him and on the said date, there were four shops occupied by four tenants. He further stated that the 1st accused has also executed a document under Ex.P-2 thereby enabling him to-collect the rent from the tenants. P.W.2 is none other than the father of P.W.1 and he also corroborated the testimony of P.W.1 Their evidence further disclosed that in November, 1988 they went to Agra and returned only on 8.12.1988, they came to know that the look put up in the door-way leading to the stair case was broken and thatched roof was put up in the terraced portion of the building. P.W.1 gave a complaint to the police and when no action was taken, private complaint was filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that there cannot be any dispute about the ownership of the property in view of Ex.P-1 and even if the accused have got any right, they should agitate the same only before the civil court to set aside the sale deed and they have no right whatsoever to commit criminal trespass into the property and cause damage. However, the learned counsel for the accused stated that there is a civil suit relating to this property, and unless and until it is decided, no criminal action can be taken. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the accused. When admittedly, the property has been conveyed under a registered document in favour of P.W. 1 coupled with execution of further document enabling P.W. 1 to collect rent from the four tenants, there is prima facie evidence relating to the title and possession of the property in favour of P.W.1. When admittedly, the property has been conveyed under a registered document in favour of P.W. 1 coupled with execution of further document enabling P.W. 1 to collect rent from the four tenants, there is prima facie evidence relating to the title and possession of the property in favour of P.W.1. It is also clear from the evidence of P.W.1 that grill door way is provided in the stair-case and it was kept under lock and key, when he went to Agra. Only on 8.12.1988 on return from Agra, it was noticed that the lock was broken and thatched roof was put up in the upstair portion. The accused having conveyed the property to P.W.1 had no right whatsoever to trespass into the property and put up a thatched roof and it cannot be justified. No doubt, a civil case has been instituted after the private complaint filed by P.W.1 and this will not affect the case of the complainant. Simply because a civil suit is instituted, it will not operate as a bar for a criminal case. As adverted to there is valid title and possession with P.W. 1 and the accused have no right whatsoever to enter into the property and put up a thatched roof. 7. Learned counsel for the accused contended that there is no evidence to show that the accused alone put up a thatched roof in the terraced portion. No doubt, P.Ws.1 and 2 were not eye-witnesses to the same and, further more, apart from P.Ws.1 and 2, no other independent witnesses were examined in this case. There are four tenants occupying the property and it is quite probable that they want to take a natural stand and they may not be prepared to give evidence. Further more, P.Ws.1 and 2 are natives of a different state and, hence, they may find it difficult to get evidence from the local persons to support their case. However, it may be, one factor cannot be ignored viz., the accused they were examined under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure admitted the thatched roof was put up only by them. When they have already conveyed the property, they have no right whatsoever to put up a thatched roof subsequently and moreover they have committed criminal trespass and they cannot put up a thatched roof. When they have already conveyed the property, they have no right whatsoever to put up a thatched roof subsequently and moreover they have committed criminal trespass and they cannot put up a thatched roof. The admission on the part of the accused has been unfortunately lost sight of by the lower appellate court and the entire approach is not proper and correct. The explanation given by the lower appellate court regarding the admission of the accused under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure appears to be very strange. When once the accused have admitted the putting up of a thatched roof in the terraced portion and the title vested with the complainant and the doorway leading to the upstair portion was under the lock and key of the complainant, it can be easily concluded that the accused have committed criminal trespass into the property and committed an offence under Sec.448, I.P.C. The trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence and the documents in its proper perspective, whereas the lower appellate court has wrongly analysed the evidence and came to a wrong conclusion. Under the circumstance, the judgment of acquittal passed by the lower appellate court is liable to be set aside and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court are to be necessarily restored. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of acquittal passed by the lower appellate court in C.A.No.299 of 1990 is set aside and the accused are found guilty under Sec.448, I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500 each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The accused are directed to pay the fine within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the records in the trial court.