MAHADEO GANPATI PATIL Vs. NABHA VISHWANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Bench of Honorary Magistrates; 2nd Class, Sitabuldi, dismissed a complaint under Section 20, Cattle Trespass Act, on the ground that the complaint in question had been filed beyond the ten days allowed under Section 20 of the Act. In this, the Honorary Magistrates clearly acted erroneously. The alleged forcible seizure of the cattle occurred on 1st December 1927, and, under Section 9, General Clauses Act, the ten days therefore, ran from 2nd December and would ordinarily expire on 11th idem; 11th December, however, was a Sunday. It is true that Section 10, General Clauses Act, only applies to Acts made on or after 14th January 1897, and does not cover, in terms, an Act like the Cattle Trespass Act which was passed in 1871. Nevertheless every consideration of justice and expediency would require that the accepted principle, which underlies Section 10, General Clauses Act, should be applied in the present case also and, as the Courts were closed on 11th December, I am of opinion that this complaint was correctly entertained on 12th December.

(2.) THE judgment of the Court below is accordingly reversed and the case will go back to that Court for re-disposal, No opportunity for producing further evidence should be given to either side, but, after hearing counsel for the complainant and accused, if necessary, the Bench should proceed to deliver airesh judgment in view of the finding I have given above on the question of limitation.