POTHUREDDI VENKU REDDY Vs. TUPILI SUBBARAMIREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision application filed by the 1st accused against the orders under Section 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act passed by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Gudur, a preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Chinnappareddy that as an appeal lies against this order, this revision application is incompetent. Mr. Gangadhararao for the accused, contends that as the accused has not been convicted at a trial, there could be no appeal, as a matter of course, under section 408 Cr.P.C. Had it not been that this matter has been resolved by the Madras High Court as early as 1901 In The Matter of Ponnuswami and Other, ILR 29 Mad. 517 , I should have considered this as one which should be fully gone into. But that decision makes it unnecessary for me to discuss the question.

(2.) In In The Matter of Ponnuswami and Another, I.L.R. 29 Mad. 517 , a division Bench consisting of Benson and Moore J.J., considered the effect of the nature of an order passed under Section 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act in the light of the change in the definition of 'offence' as amended in 1898. They held:-

(3.) It is not possible to gather from this decision hence an adjudication that the seizure or detention is illegal under section 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act at an 'enquiry' as provided under section 21 of the same Act, could be taken not only as conviction but also as a "conviction at a trial". It is indeed rather difficult to construe an enquiry, Which, according to the definition contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, excludes a trial, would by any stretch of imagination, be taken to be a trial. Similarly it is also doubtful whether a seizure or detention when adjudged to be illegal would tantamount to a conviction though possibly in such a case having regard to the definition of 'offence' in the Cattle Trespass Act, an 'offence' in the technical sense might have been committed. In a recent decision of Somasundaram J. in Venkatesa Reddiar v. Veeraswami Mudali and another, (1956) 2 MLJ 449 , the discussion discloses, in my view, good reasons for the opposite view from that of the decision In The Matter of Ponnuswami and another, ILR (Vol. XXIX) Madras Series, 517. But then as has been remarked by Ramaswami J. in Murugan and others v. Ramabodra Naidu, AIR (1957) Mad. 742 , the Bench decision In The Matter of Ponnuswami and another, ILR (Vol. XXIX) Madras Series, 517 , appears to have not been brought to the notice of this learned Judge. The question, in my view, therefore would require a full consideration when the appropriate opportunity presents itself.