SHANKERLAL Vs. RAMSHANKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 417 (3) Criminal Procedure Code has been filed in the following circumstances.

(2.) THE appellant Shankerlal, acting on behalf of his master Chitranjan Dube made a complaint under Section 20 of the Cattle-Trespass Act, 1871, against the respondent Ramshankar and two other persons. The First Class Magistrate of Hoshangabad, before whom the complaint was made, holding that Ramshankar had illegally seized cattle belonging to Chitranjan awarded Rs. 15/- as compensation to Chitranjan and made an order for payment of Rs. 195/- by the respondent to Chitranjan as the amount of fine and expenses incurred in procuring the release of the cattle. Ramshankar then preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge of Hoshangabad. The appeal was allowed and the order of the First Class Magistrate was set aside. It is against this order of the learned Sessions Judge that the appellant came up to this Court and obtained leave to appeal under Section 417 (3) Cri. P. C.

(3.) TWO points arise for consideration in this appeal. First, whether the appeal preferred before the learned Sessions Judge was competent, and, secondly, whether the order made by the First Class Magistrate under Section 22 of the Cattle-Trespass Act was legal and right. On the first point. the learned Sessions Judge held that the order passed by the First Class Magistrate under Section 22 of the Act was appealable. He found support for this view in Matru v. Dhunnilal, ILR 1950 Nag 393 : AIR 1951 Nag 287. In our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge went wrong in holding that the order of the First Class Magistrate was appealable under the Code of Criminal Procedure. An order under Section 22 of the Act is not an order of any conviction or acquittal of the person against whom a complaint has been made under Section 20. It is true that under Section 4 (1) (o) Cri. P. C. 'offence' includes any act in respect of which a complaint may be made under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871. But, as pointed out in the decision relied on by the learned Sessions Judge himself, the effect of this inclusion is only to confer jurisdiction on a Magistrate to hear such complaints and to hold an enquiry into the wrongful seizure and detention of the cattle but the enquiry does not result in acquittal or conviction. The order that is passed under Section 22 is only about the payment or non-payment of compensation and of the fines paid and expenses incurred by the complainant under the Cattle Trespass Act in procuring the release of. the cattle. It is not a fine. No imprisonment can be ordered in default of payment of the compensation money under Section 22. That the compensation amount awarded under Section 22 is not a fine is very clear from Section 23 which says that the compensation mentioned in Section 22 may be recovered as if it was a fine imposed by a Magistrate. If the compensation amount had been a fine under the Criminal Procedure Code, then there would have been no necessity of the 'deeming provision' contained in Section 23. An order awarding a compensation under Section 22 is not an order of conviction. Nor is an order (u) refusing to award compensation, one of acquittal. That being so the provisions in the Code with regard to appeals against convicions and acquittals do not apply to an order under Section 22.