R. NARAYANAREDDI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to revise the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Chittoor, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment of the Sub-Magistrate of Palamaner and affirming their convictions under Sec. 353 I.P.C. and the sentences of fine of Rs. 50/- each imposed on them.

(2.) The case for the prosecution is that on 13-8-1955 P. Ws. 1 to 3 found about 100 goats grazing in the forest area near Ammarajupalli, That the forest guard, P. W. 2, and the forest watcher P. W. 3, were taking these goats at about 7 p.m. to the cattle pound at Peddavalegatoor for impounding them and that on the way petitioners 1 and 2 caught hold of P. W. 2 and petitioners 3 and 4 caught hold of P. W. 3 and the remaining 100 persons of their party rescued the goats and took them away. Both the courts below accepted the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 with regard to the assault committed by the petitioners as described above and disbelieved the alibi spoken to by the defence witnessess, and found the petitioners guilty under Sec. 353 I. P. C.

(3.) It is contended in revision that the goats were grazing only on reserved land and not in any reserved forest, that the grazing on the reserved land was not prohibited and there was no justification for impounding the goats and that the petitioners committed no offence as they used the minimum amount of force for their legitimate purpose of rescuing the goats. The main question which arises for consideration is whether the goats were grazing on reserved land or in a reserved forest. Although P. W. 1, the Forest Range Officer, referred to the place in his examination-in-chief as reserved forest, the concerned notification Ex. C-1 filed by him relates only to land reserved under Rule 5 of the General Rules framed under Sec. 26 of the Madras Forest Act. In view of this discrepancy, the learned Public Prosecutor was requested to ascertain from the forest officials concerned, whether the area in which the goats were grazing was in fact reserved forest or merely reserved land. The learned Public Prosecutor now states that it was only a reserved land and the mention of 'reserved forest' by the cryptic letters "R. F." in P. W. 1's deposition is a mistake. It is also conceded that the grazing in the reserved land in which the goats were found was not prohibited by any rule or notification made under Sec. 26 of the Forest Act. Thus the case against the petitioners reduces itself to their having caught hold of P. Ws. 2 and 3 for the purpose of rescuing goats, which P. Ws. 2 and 3 were wrongly trying to impound. The assault was technical as it consisted of merely holding P. Ws 2 and 3 so that they might not prevent the petitioners' party from taking the goats away. It is clear that the petitioners did not in any way exceed their right of private defence of property. The fact that the goats were grazing only on reserved land makes all the difference and the convictions cannot be supported. This revision petition is therefore allowed and the convictions and sentences are set aside. The fines, if already paid, will be refunded to the petitioners.