WILLIAM ROGER FERNANDEZ Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused, William (who is now reported to have died) was the owner of survey No. 75 of mauza Umri. Over a portion of the field is a kotha which belonged and is in the possession of the complainant's mother. On the ground that the complainant's bullocks did damage to the field of the accused, the bullocks were seized and sent to the cattle pound on 24th March 1946.

(2.) ON 2nd April 1946, the complainant filed a complaint in the Court of the Magistrate tinder Section 20, Cattle Trespass Act. This complaint was registered and enquired into by the Magistrate who convicted William and also his servant Sk. Rasul for having seized a pair of bullocks and impounded it in contravention of the Cattle Trespass Act. The learned Magistrate convicted both the accused and sentenced William to a fine of Rs. 25 and Sk. Rasul to Rs. 15. Out of these fines Rs. 12 were to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 545(1)(a), Criminal P.C. Both William and his servant Sk. Rasul preferred an appeal. The appellate Court confirmed the finding that the pair of bullocks was illegally seized and impounded. It however held, and correctly, that no fine can be imposed on a complaint under Section 20, Cattle Trespass Act. The Magistrate trying such a complaint can, under Section 22 of the Act, award to the complainant compensation for the loss caused by the seizure or detention by the accused. This compensation to be awarded would include the amount which the complainant had to spend for procuring the release of cattle.

(3.) IT has been correctly urged that no compensation can be awarded under Section 545(1)(a), Criminal P.C, as this is not a case in which a fine has been imposed in appeal. The order imposing fine by the first Court was correctly set aside by the appellate Court. What is awarded by the appellate Court is compensation under Section 22, Cattle Trespass Act which is not a fine as contemplated by Section 545(1), Criminal P.C. In. Munney Mirza v. King-Emperor A.I.R. 12 1925 Oudh 110 where the accused was dealt with under Section 562, Criminal P.C, Wazir Hasan J.C. observed that the award of Rs. 50 as compensation under Section 515, Criminal P.C, was illegal and without jurisdiction and it was consequently set aside by him in revision. I entirely agree with the view taken by Wazir Hasan J.C, and hold that the award of compensation under Section 545(1)(a), Criminal P.C, in the present case was without jurisdiction, and it is accordingly set aside.