JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the order of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur on 4.9.1984 convicting the accused appellants under section 455 IPC, the appellants have preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed before me. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have scrutinised the record and reappreciated the evidence on record. From the reappreciation of the evidence, the following facts which cannot be disputed are disclosed: (1) That the first information report has been lodged four days after the alleged incident has taken place. (2) That the learned Sessions Judge has accepted, and rightly, that arrangements for residence of the complainant and her son were made in Keerti Hotel by the accused Narendra Singh. (3) That for the period between 3.8.1978 to 23.9.1978, two rooms of the Pratap Country Inn were in, possession of the complainant and the Hotel Pratap Inn belonging to accused Narendra Singh. 3. It is undisputedly that all the articles belonging to the complainant removed from the rooms at Tittardi House were shifted to Keerti Hotel in Udaipur. In the face of these findings, no conviction under section 455 IPC is permissible. 4. Section 455 IPC reads as under: "455. Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint:Whoever commits lurking house-trespass, or house-breaking, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person, or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt or of assault or of wrongful restraint, shall putting any person in fear of hurt or of assault or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years,and shall also be liable to fine." 5. In order to bring home charge under section 455, it was therefore, be necessary for the prosecution to prove (i) that house-breaking or lurking house-trespass was committed, (ii) that it was committed with the intention of causing hurt, assault or wrongful restraint or fear of such assault etc. It has come on record that the Hotel Pratap Inn belonging to accused Narendra Singh. It has come on record that the Hotel Pratap Inn belonging to accused Narendra Singh. Permissive occupation of hotel room cannot give title to the occupant or take away right of the owner to enter the premises and consequently even if the entire prosecution evidence is accepted as correct, no case for house-trespass or house breaking is made out. The order of conviction under section 455 IPC in the circumstances is unsustainable in law. 6. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of conviction is set aside. The accused are already on bail, their bail-bonds are cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******