PRASANNA KUMAR SAMAL Vs. BALBHADRA ROUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have been convicted Under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act and each of them sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/ - and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

(2.) THE complainant's case, in brief, is that on 16 -10 -64, while P. W. 3, the watcher appointed by the villagers of Baligorada, with the help of P. W. 4 was taking some cattle of the petitioners to the cattle pound for having damaged paddy crop on complainant's land, petitioners forcibly rescued and took away the cattle. Petitioners in defence deny the allegations and allege that while some heads of cattle belonging to some of them were grazing on a waste land on the Baligo -rada side of the rivulet. P. W. 3 and some of his co -villagers seized them. On receiving information, petitioner No. 1 went there and protested against such action. On his protest, P. W. 8 attempt -ed to assault Mm with an axe, but peti -tioner No. 1 managed to snatch it away and apprehending assault left the place. Ultimately, he recovered the cattle from the jungle in the night. The other petitioners deny their presence at the place of occurrence.

(3.) THE main contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that a conviction Under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act can be sustained only if the prosecution proves that the seizure was strictly in accordance with Section 10 of the Act. In the present case, it is further contended that there is no specific finding that the cattle alleged to have been rescued were liable to be seized. In other words, there is no specific finding that (1) P. W. 3 was a person entitled to seize Under Section 10 and (2) that actual damage to the crop had been caused by the cattle.