GHULBA LAHANU Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has been referred to this Court by the Sessions Judge, Wardha.

(2.) Two persons (who have been shown as non-applicants here) were held liable to pay compensation under Section 22, Cattle Trespass Act. The learned Magistrate who tried the case ordered as follows: As regards sentence, the accused have by their illegal act caused the complainant co suffer a loss of Rs. 109-8-0. Each of the two accused U, therefore, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40 and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a mouth. Out of the fine if recovered the complainant shall be paid Ha. SO as compensation under y. 545 (I) tb), Criminal P. C. He had previously "convicted" these persons whom he described as "accused" under Section 22 of the Act.

(3.) The learned Magistrate's approach to the case is all wrong. There is no question of a "fine" and much less of imprisonment in lieu of fine. The person who is held liable under Section 22 of the Act is not "an accused" nor is he "convicted" of the "offence". The Legislature has scrupulously avoided any such terms. Under Section 22 of the Act compensation together with fines and expenses, can only be ordered against the person who is adjudged liable. This money is recoverable under Section 23 of the Act as if it were a fine. This refers to Section 386, Criminal PC. No imprisonment can be ordered in default of payment of this money. The attention of the learned Magistrate is drawn to Bamdulary V/s. Manohar A.I.R. (17) 1930 Nag. 149 Similarly, Section 545 (i) (b), Criminal P. C, is not applicable. All the necessary powers are given by Section 22 of the Act.