PORUSOTTAM SINGH AND 3 ORS. Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, dismissing an appeal against the judgment of the Magistrate, 3rd Class, Udala, finding the Petitioners guilty under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and convicting them thereunder and sentencing them to a fine of Rs. 30/ - each in default to twenty days rigorous imprisonment each.

(2.) THE material facts are these: On July 6, 1956, the Petitioners were alleged to have snatched away the bullocks which Were engaged in ploughing the land of the complainant (P.W. 1) and it was alleged that the Petitioners took them to the pound. The Petitioners were charged under Section 379 I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty to the charge. They, however, admitted that they took the cattle to the pound but asserted that as the cattle had damaged their crops they did so.

(3.) BOTH the learned Magistrate and also the learned Assistant Session Judge in appeal, considered the matter from only one aspect, namely, as to who was in possession of the disputed land and who raised paddy on it, for determination of the question whether the accused Petitioners had any right to impound the cattle. In course of the trial before the learned Magistrate it was argued on behalf of the defence that the Case fell under Section 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act and not under Section 379 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate, however, did not agree with the defence case on the point. The appeal before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was heard ex parte as the pleader for the accused Petitioners could not be found and the accused -Petitioners themselves were also absent on the date of hearing. The argument on the Cattle Trespass Act does not appear to have been considered by the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge because there is no mention of this aspect of the defence case in the judgment of the learned Asst. Sessions Judge.