MURUVAN Vs. RAMABADRA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition raises an interesting point, namely, whether ah appeal lies in regard to the award of compensation for illegal seizure or detention under section 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act.

(2.) IT is now well settled that since the word "offence" as defined by Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code includes an act in respect of which a complaint may be made under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act a person against whom an order under Section 22 is made is a person "convicted on a trial" within the meaning of this section and an appeal against the conviction lies, therefore, under Section. 407; Cr. P. C.

(3.) THE case-law on the subject may now be briefly summarised. In the matter of ponnuswami, ILR 29 Mad 517 (A), a Bench of this Court consisting of Benson and moore, JJ. , after the amendment: of the Cattle Trespass Act, held that by Section 4 (o) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the word "offence" includes an act in respect of which a complaint may be made under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass act; and a person against whom an order under Section 22 of the Cattle Trespass act is made is a "person convicted on a trial" and is entitled to appeal under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.