PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. GOLLA YELLAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint was filed by the Forest Officer Narasapur Range before the Munsif Magistrate, Medak against A-1 to A-5 for contravening the provisions of Section 20(i)(c)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 and also under Sec 24 of the Cattle Tresspass Act, 1871.

(2.) The allegation was that the accused in the said case, on 14-8-1968 at about 7.00 a. m. were found grazing 100 goats illicitly in the reserve forest block of Kowdipally. They were seized by the Special Party and the names of the graziers were noted. After the seizure, the goats were brought to the road side and the Range Officer was making panchanama. Meanwhile number of persons came armed with lathies and after assaulting the Special Party with force took away the goats and they also snatched away the papers from the possession of the Range Officer. On these allegations the complaint was filed. The learned Magistrate by her order dated 23-10-1969 dismissed the complaint mainly on the ground that in the column 4 of the complaint, the section under which the offence was committed was not mentioned correctly. The relevant observation is as under.

(3.) It is against this order the appeal has been preferred. I think the order of the Magistrate is unsustainable. Obviously the Magistrate did not look into the complaint, particularly the last portion thereof wherein it was clearly stated that A. 1 to A. 5 had contravened the provisions of Section 20 (1) (c) (ii) of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act of 1967 and have rendered themselves liable for punishment under Section 20 (d) (ii) of the said Act. The same accused persons i. e. A.-1 to A. 5 and also A. 6 and A. 7 by unlawfully rescuing the seized goats have also rendered themselves liable for punishment under Section 24 of the Cattle Tress Pass Act, of 1871. In this part of the Complaint the offences which the accused had committed and rendered them selved liable for punishment has been clearly stated. The mere omission to mention the relevant section in column 4 was not sufficient to justify the conclusion that the charge was vague. Further it is well settled that merely because a section has been omitted to be quoted, the complaint is not liable to be dismissed on that account. The Magistrate on evidence and facts of that case can always correct the mistake. I, therefore hold that the order of the Magistrate is liable to be set aside. Further, the Magistrate has not taken into consideration the fact that there was also a charge against the accused of rescuing the goats by use of force under section 24 of the Cattle Tresspass Act. Section 20 of the Cattle Tresspass Act provides a period of 10 days for a complaint against seizure of cattle and the detention in contravention of the Act. The case on band is not based on the fact that the cattle had been wrongly detained. The ruling cited by the learned Magistrate has no application.