RASH BEHARI CHATTERJEE vs FAGU SHAW & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in acquitting the respondents under Sections 441 and 447 IPC, as the appellant was in actual possession of the property despite not being physically present at the time of the trespass. The Court clarified that the intention to annoy does not require the complainant to be present during the trespass. The conviction of the respondents was reinstated, affirming that their actions were intended to annoy the appellant who had recently regained possession of the land after a lengthy legal battle.