MAYADHAR PAIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE four petitioners have been convicted under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act by learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate of Bargarh and each of them has been directed to pay a fine of Rs. 50/ - or in default suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. As the learned Magistrate inflicted a non -appealable sentence, this revision has been carried directly against the original conviction.

(2.) HAVING heard Mr. Patnaik for the petitioners at length on merits of the matter, I am not impressed that it is a fit case for interference so far as the conviction is concerned.

(3.) THE learned Additional Government Advocate meets this point by contending that cognisance of the offence in this case was taken on 23.7.1973, long before the new Code came into force and by virtue of Section 484 (2) (a) of the new Code, the provisions of the new Code are not applicable to the case. Therefore, Mr. Patnaik's objection is not sustainable.