Section 341 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Explained!
Where conviction for wrongful confinement is not supported by independent corroborative evidence and the charge even did not state the date of the offence, it was held that the evidence was sufficient for conviction only for wrongful restraint and not for wrongful confinement.
In Vijay Kumari Magee v. Sint. S. R. Rao the Supreme Court held that necessary precondition for the offence of wrongful restraint is that the person concerned must have a right to proceed, and so the complainant teacher who was a licensee of a room in the hostel could not have a right to live there after termination of the licence, and hence the school authorities could not be charged for wrongfully restraining her from entering the said room.
The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable and compoundable, and is triable by any magistrate.