IN RE: SATHIRNALAN AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application to revise the appellate Order of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Ramnad, confirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioners herein, by the Stationary Sub -Magistrate, Srivilliputtur of an offence under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act and sentencing each of the petitioners to pay a fine of Rs. 50 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six weeks each.

(2.) WITHIN the ambit of the Zamindary of Seithur in the Ramnad District, there lies a forest by name Sembarambu to which the provisions of the Madras Forest Act have been applied by the Provincial Government and rules to regulate the management of this Forest were promulgated and published in pages 105 to 108 of the Madras Forest Manual, Volume II. The prosecution case is that on the 30th May, 1946, a Forest Range Officer belonging to the Seithur estate when he was inspecting the forest with his watchers P. Ws. 1 and 2, found a herd of cows grazing in a coupe of the forest which is closed for grazing cattle. Under the orders of P.W. 3, P.Ws. 1 and 2 herded the cattle together and were driving them to the cattle pound when the petitioners came to the scene, abused P.W. 1 for driving the cattle to the pound and in spite of the intervention of P.W. 3 to pacify them, prevented P. Ws. 1 and 2 from taking the herd to the pound. The petitioners then prevented P. Ws. 1 and 2 and others from going near the herd, rescued the cows from the watchers and drove them to a village.

(3.) THE question for consideration is whether Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act applies to the facts of this case. Mr. K.S. Champakesa Aiyangar for the petitioners contends that P.W. 3, the Forest Officer of the Seithur Zamindar who ordered the seizure of the cattle by his watchers P. Ws. 1 and 2 and others does not come within the definition of a Forest Officer as defined under the Madras Forest Act and therefore the seizure of the cattle under his order is illegal. He further contends that in accordance with the rules framed for the management of this forest published in volume II of the Madras Forest Manual, the prohibition against permitting the cattle to trespass or graze in the forest is contained in Clause 6 and any violation of that Clause is punishable under Rule 11 and not under the Cattle Trespass Act. Since the trial Court has found that a breach or infringement of Rule 6 has not taken place in this case, the conviction under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act is illegal.