WILLIAM ROGER FERNANDEZ Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused, William (who is now reported to have died) was the owner of survey No. 75 of mauza Umri. Over a portion of the field is a kotha which belonged and is in the possession of the complainant's mother. On the ground that the complainant's bullocks did damage to the field of. the accused, the bullocks were seized and sent to the cattle pound on 24th March 1946.

(2.) ON 2nd April 1946, the complainant filed a complaint in the Court of the Magistrate under Section 20, Cattle Trespass Act. This com-plaint wag registered and enquired into by the Magistrate who convicted William and also his servant Sk. Rasul for having 'seized a pair of bullocks and impounded it in contravention of the Cattle Trespass Act. The learned Magistrate-convicted be to the accused and sentenced William to a fine of Es. 25 and Sk. Rasul to Es. 15. Out of these fines Es. 12 were to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 545 (1) (a), Criminal P. C. be to William and his servant Sk. Rasul preferred an appeal. The appellate Court confirmed the finding that the pair of bullocks was illegally seized and impounded. It however held, and correctly, that no fine can be imposed on a complaint under Section 20, Cattle Trespass Act. The Magistrate trying such a complaint can, under Section 22 of the Act, award to the complainant compensation for the loss caused by the seizure or detention by the accused. This compensation to be awarded would include the amount which the complainant had to spand for procuring the release of cattle.

(3.) THE appellate Court found that the complainant was entitled to Bs. 6 as compensation under S, 22, Cattle Trespass Act and it ordered that each of the accused should pay Rs. 3 as compensation to the complainant. It further directed that each of the accused should pay to the complainant RS. 7. 40 as compensation under Section 545 (1) (a), Criminal P. C. be to the accused have filed this revision.