LAWS(MAD)-1957-12-1

RAMAN Vs. STATE

Decided On December 10, 1957
RAMAN Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL. R. C. No. 141 of 1957 is by the accused against his conviction for ant offence under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. Crl Ap. No. 264 of 1957 is by the State against the acquittal of the accused for an offence under Section 332, IPC with which he was also charged. On 28-8-1956, the Forest Guard P. W. 1 in the beat of Gudiyatam range and the forest watcher P. W. 2 working with P. W. H saw at about 12 noon some goats grazing in the reserved forest. There were about 67 goats grazing and two persons were grazing them They rounded up the goats for the purpose of taking them to the pound. The two servants shouted and the accused who presumably was the owner of the goats rushed with a knife in his hand and threatened the two officers with severe penalty if they took the goats to the pound. It is alleged that the accused caught hold of the neck of P. W. 1 and pushed him down and threatened to cut him with the knife. P. W. 1 sustained undoubtedly minor injuries which were noticed by P. W. 6 the doctor who examined him the next day at 11 a. m. on a requisition from P. W. 5 the Sub-Inspector of Police. P. W. 1 gave a complaint to P. W. 3, the Range Officer, Gudiyatam the same night setting out substantially the allegations mentioned above. Subsequently also he appears to have given a complaint to P. W. 4 the cattle pound keeper. The complaint given to P. W. 3 was forwarded by him in due course to the police for investigation and the police after investigation filed a charge-sheet against the accused for an offence under Section 332, IPC and also for an offence under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. The Additional First Class Magistrate who tried the case acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 332, IPC but convicted him of the offence under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. It is against this conviction that the revision has been preferred and subsequent to the admission of this revision it transpires both from the records and the statement made by the Public Prosecutoi that the Public Prosecutor was asked as to whether the State was filing an appeal against the acquittal. Thereafter according to the usual practice the records are forwarded to the Public Prosecutor who goes into the whole question and gives his opinion to the Government. Apparently on the opinion furnished by the Public Prosecutor the Government instructed the Public Prosecutor to file the appeal against acquittal. Instructions were received by the Public Prosecutor on 26th March, 1957. The judgment of the lower Court was on 6-11-1956. The time for filing an appeal against the acquittal is three months. There is no doubt that this appeal was filed beyond time. At the time of filing the appeal, a petition to excuse the delay was filed supported by an affidavit of one of the Clerks in the office of the Public Prosecutor. The delay in filing the appeal was excused by the admission Court without notice to the respondent. Both the revision and the appeal have been posted together and have come up before me for final hearing and disposal.

(2.) SO far as the revision is concerned, the question of law raised by Mr. Gopalaswami appearing for the petitioner is that the conviction under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act is unsustainable in view of the provision namely that under the Section it is only when cattle are seized under the Cattle Trespass Act that Section 24 would apply. Sections 10 and 11 provide for the circumstances under which cattle under the Act can be seized. In terms Section 11 cannot be applied because Section 11 says that

(3.) ANOTHER contention raised by Mr. Gopalaswami is that under Section 58 that The Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that, in lieu of the fines fixed by the twelfth section of the Act. . . there shall be fixed, in all or any of the areas to which this Act applies for each head of cattle impounded under Section 57 of this Act such fine as they think fit, but not exceeding the following. . . . The Officer can only levy the fine and cannot convict him. But a reading of the fines in that section will clearly show that the section is intended to levy a fine by the keeper of the pound. Section 12 does not deal with animals mentioned in Section 58. It seems to me that Section 58 of the Madras Forest Act does not apply to the facts of this case. The Forest Officer can seize the cattle and send them to the pound which would be dealt with according to the raies mentioned in Section 58 or in Section 12 as the case may be. The contention of Mr. Gopalaswami therefore fails and the conviction is justified. The fine cannot be said to be excessive and here-fore is not reduced. The Criminal revision is dismissed.