(1.) THIS is a revision against the order passed by the Sub -Divisional. Magistrate, Cheyyar, in C.A. No. 4 of 1955 on his file. The petitioner was the complainant in the trial Court and he filed a complaint under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act, alleging that while the carts engaged by him for carrying silt to his fields were being driven over certain fields belonging to the respondents, they stopped the carts, unyoked the bulls, seized them and put them in the pound. Under Section 22 of the Act, the trial Court adjudged the seizure as illegal and awarded compensation of Rs. 50 to be paid by each of the respondents herein for the loss sustained by the complainant due to seizure and detention. Against, that order, the respondents herein preferred an appeal, and in the appeal, the Sub -Divisional Magistrate set aside the order of the trial Court, thereby setting aside the order for compensation. It is against the order of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate this revision has been filed.
(2.) IT is not necessary to go into the merits of this case. The question that is raised before me is one of jurisdiction for the Sub -Divisional Magistrate to entertain, an appeal before him against the order for compensation passed under Section 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act.
(3.) ALTHOUGH , according to the definition of offence in the Criminal Procedure Code, the act of seizure or detention in contravention of the provisions of the Cattle -Trespass Act amounts to an offence, still, in Section 22, the Legislature enacted that 'if the seizure or detention be adjudged illegal, the Magistrate shall award to the complainant reasonable compensation'. When offences under Section 20 are tried by a Court, if the seizure or detention is found (adjudged) to be illegal, it is compensation that has to be given by the Magistrate mentioned in Section 22, and that is for the expenses incurred to release the cattle from the pound. The person: proceeded against is only ordered to pay compensation. The expression used in Section 22 is 'adjudging the seizure or detention as illegal' and not finding the person who seized or detained the cattle guilty of the offence of seizure or detention. Nor does the Legislature in Section 22 of the Act enact that when convicted of the offence under Section 20, the accused shall be sentenced to any punishment or imprisonment in default of payment of compensation. It is the compensation that, has to be collected as if it were a fine. The very language of Section 22 is against treating a person who seized or detained cattle against the provisions of the Act as an accused or convicting him and sentencing him to any of the punishments known, to Criminal Law.