JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner dated 15.11.1997 by which he maintained the conviction of the petitioner under Section 443 IPC but reduced the sentence and gave benefit of Probation of Offenders Act but maintained the order for delivery of possession of the house to the complainant. 2. Facts of the case may be narrated as follows- Kedarnath PW-4 was the power of attorney holder of Asha Kumari. He sent a written report to Superintendent of Police, Bikaner which he received on 8.1.1983 at 4.30 RM. It stated that Asha Kumari's house was situated in Mohalla of Sansis in Bikaner. Possession of the same was taken on 20.11.1980 through Sale Amin and the house was locked. Power of attorney holder thereafter went to Jodhpur in relation to his business. He returned to Bikaner on 19.12.1980 and when he reached the house he found that Smt. Shahodara was in its occupation. She was asked as to how she entered into the house. Then she started quarrelling. Kundanlal and others collected and tried to pursuade Smt. Shahodara who told that she had occupied the house after breaking open the lock. On inquiry the power of attorney holder came to know that after three days of its occupation Smt. Shahodara broke open the lock and took possession of the house on 22.11.1980. She thus forcibly took possession of the house in order to annoy, intimidate and insult Asha Kumari. A case was registered under Section 448 IPC and Balwant Singh ASI ivestigated the matter. After investigation challan was submitted before the Magistrate having jurisdiction who read over accusation to the petitioner on 24.2.1982. The petitioner denied her indictment and claimed trial. Prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and exhibited various documents. Then the petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.RC. she did not examine any witness in defence. Learned Magistrate, after hearing both the parties, convicted the petitioner to offence under Section 448 IPC and sentenced is to four months simple imprisonment and also ordered that the possession of the house will be delivered to the complainant. Appeal was preferred which was decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge who maintained the finding of guilt against the petitioner but gave benefit of probation to the petitioner. Appeal was preferred which was decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge who maintained the finding of guilt against the petitioner but gave benefit of probation to the petitioner. He maintained the other part of sentence including delivery of vacant possession of the house to the complainant. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the glaring feature of the case is that the prosecution was not able to prove that Smt. Shahodara petitioner had taken possession of the house in question on 22.11.1980. He submitted that the case of the prosecution is that Sale Amin delivered possession on 22.11.1980. But it appears that the possession was physically not handed over to the complainant and it was simply recorded on papers. He also submitted that the intention to intimidate, insult or annoy has not been proved. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner deserves acquittal. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the complainant submitted that the prosecution was able to prove case under Section 448 IPC against the petitioner and that the scope of re -appreciation of evidence by this Court is very limited. They relied on State of Kerala v. Puttumana lllath Jathavedan Namboodiri etc., JT 1999(1) SC page 456 , where in it has been held that ordinarily it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to a gross miscarriage of justice. According to them no injustice appears to have been done to the petitioner rather injustice has been done to the complainant when she is out of possession of her house which she purchased and possession of which she got through the Sale Amin of the court as long back as in the year 1980 and even today she is running from pillar to post in order to obtain possession. 6. I have gone through the evidence recorded during the trial keeping in view the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. I have gone through the evidence recorded during the trial keeping in view the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Ofcourse the evidence appreciated by Trial Court and re-appreciated in the appellate court shall not be re-appreciated by this Court but when the counsel for the petitioner is arguing that glaring feature of the case is that the possession was not readily handed over to the complainant, it becomes necessary to go through the evidence. PW-1 Buiaki Chand, Sale Amin of the Court of District Judge, who executed the warrant of possession in execution case No. 78/73, has appeared in witness box and has stated that he alongwith a Class IV servant reached the house and found that the house was locked. The lock was broken before Suresh Kumar, Kundanlal and Shyam Modan and possession was handed over physically to Kedarnath. While reading the statement of this witness counsel submitted that it cannot be concluded definitely from his statement that the house in question was handed over to the petitioner. He by creating doubt by raising such does not get any benefit as the witness has told in clear terms that possession of house in question was delivered to Kedar Nath by breaking the lock. Suresh Kumar PW-2 has stated that the lock which was put on the door of the house was broken by the Sale Amin of the court and possession of it was handed over to Kedar Nath. He knows the house very well and has proved that the possession was handed over to Kedar Nath. At that time Smt. Shahodara petitioner was not present. Kundanlal is another important witness and he has also stated that the possession was handed over to Kedar Nath before him. Kedarnath PW-4 has asserted in his statement that the possession was taken by him on behalf of his niece Asha whose power of attorney holder he was. He has stated that after putting his lock on the house he had gone to Jodhpur. He came back to Bikaner after one month. In the meantime Kundanlal informed him that Smt. Shahodara had broken open the lock on 22.11.1980 and occupied the house. He, therefore, lodged report to the Superintendent of Police which is Ex. P/6. He has stated that after putting his lock on the house he had gone to Jodhpur. He came back to Bikaner after one month. In the meantime Kundanlal informed him that Smt. Shahodara had broken open the lock on 22.11.1980 and occupied the house. He, therefore, lodged report to the Superintendent of Police which is Ex. P/6. He was cross examined on behalf of the petitioner and it was put to him that Smt. Shahodara did not occupy the house but no suggestion was made as to why she was being falsely implicated. There was no suggestion that Shahodara was already in occupation of the house and only paper possession was taken through the Sale Amin of the Court. 7. PW-5 Ramdev, a Class IV servant of the court of District Judge, has also proved that the lock of the house was broken open and the possession was handed over. He has proved his signatures on the proceedings. Shyam Mohan Sharma PW-8 is a witness before whom possession of the house was given to Kedar Nath. He has also stated that Smt. Shahodara was not present at the time. He is the person who broke open the lock as he was carrying on business of cycle repairs in a shop near Railway Crossing on the M.S. College Road, Bikaner. He has further stated that the officials of the court waited and waited for Smt. Shahodara but when she did not come the lock was broken at about 2.00 RM. and physical possession was handed over to Kedar Nath. According to him the persons had entered into the house and physical possession was handed over. In view of this evidence the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that some other house was handed over to Kedar Nath or that the prosecution was not able to prove its case that the possession was handed over to Kedar Nath do not hold water. 8. The next plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that Smt. Shahodara did not take possession of the house on the alleged date and she was already in possession of the house. I have already discussed that Smt. Shahodara was not present and possession of the house was handed over to Kedar Nath who was working as power of attorney holder of Smt. Asha. I have already discussed that Smt. Shahodara was not present and possession of the house was handed over to Kedar Nath who was working as power of attorney holder of Smt. Asha. The house came in possession of the complainant on the date when Sale Amin delivered it. 9. The question arises as to whether Smt. Shahodara petitioner committed trespass? There is enough evidence with regard to this fact as she was found in possession of the house subsequently on investigation. Her case that she was already in possession of the house on the date when possession is alleged to have been given to Kedar Nath was not accepted by the learned Magistrate and by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. This finding cannot be reversed. When Smt. Shahodara petitioner after breaking open the lock of the complainant took possession of the house in his absence, what more is required to prove her intention to annoy, insult or intimidate the complainant. She has trespassed into the residential house of the complainant not for any fun. Her intemtion was nothing less than the required to prove the offence under Section 448 IPC. The evidence by which it is proved beyond doubt that Smt. Shahodra petitioner took possession of the house in question has been accepted by both the courts below and the conclusion based on it cannot be set aside in revision. Offence under Section 448 IPC is proved against the petitioner beyond doubt. She was given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and was also ordered to hand over possession of the house in question. Such an order can very welt be passed while sentencing an accused under Section 448 IPC. There are no grounds to interfere in the order of learned Magistrate confirmed by learned Sessions Judge holding Shahodara guilty and asking her to hand over possession of the house in question. 10. Consequently, the revision has no force and it is hereby dismissed.Revision petition is dismissed. *******