The companyplainants case is that the first accused and his two sons were present and also the bailiff and that the damage to the other huts was deliberately caused at the instigation of the first accused and his two sons, the second and third accused.
The companyplainant applied in revision against the acquittals to the High Court.
The first accused is the landlord of certain premises.
Later, when the revision was heard, also by Chunder, J., he upheld the acquittal of one of the three accused against whom the rule was issued but set aside the acquittals of the other two and remanded the case for a retrial.
The facts are these.
They desisted for a short time when these other persons, including the companyplainant, protested.
It is admitted on all hands that the huts in question were damaged but the accused say that this was due to a mistake made by the companylies because the huts stand cheek by jowl and the companylies did number realise that they were number to touch those other huts when they started to work on them.
The companyplainant arid one Sarojini Dasi are his tenants while Bacha ram Khatua P. W. 2 , Gunadhar Sasmal P. W. 4 and Paban Chandra Mikap P. W. 6 are subtenants of the companyplainant.
According to the companyplainants the companylies acted under the directions of the four accused when they first began to start work on these other houses.
The decree was executed on 13 8 1952 at 5 30 P. M. and in the process of demolition, huts belonging to the companyplainant, and also to Bacharam Khatua P. W. 2 , Gunadhar Sasmal P. W. 4 and Paban Chandra Mikap P. W. 6 , were damaged.
Chunder, J. issued rules against three of the accused but refused to issue one against the fourth.
But after putting their heads together for a time all four accused directly and deliberately told the companylies to damage these other huts.
The first accused obtained a decree against Sarojini authorising him to demolish certain huts in her possession.
As soon as the accused realised what was happening they at once stopped the work.
Bose, J. Four persons, including the two appellants, were prosecuted at the instance of a private companyplainant for offences alleged by him to have been companymitted under Sections 448, 427, 380, 166 and 114, I.P.C. All four were acquitted by the learned trying Magistrate.
Leave to appeal to this Court was granted by two other Judges of the Calcutta High Court.
