EMPEROR Vs. VISHVANATH VISHNU JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE think that the Second Class Magistrate had jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. The only ground upon which the District Magistrate has suggested that he had no jurisdiction is that he was not specially authorized by the District Magistrate to deal with complaints under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act. There is no suggestion, however, that this Second Class Magistrate was not authorized under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to take cognizance of offences upon receiving complaints, and it must be taken for the purposes of this reference that he was so authorized. No further special authority to take cognizance of complaints under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act is needed in view of the definition of the word "offence" in Section 4, Clause (o), which includes any act in respect of which a complaint may be made under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act. It is clear from the Second Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure that offences under special Acts punishable with imprisonment for less than one year or with fine only are triable by any Magistrate. WE think, therefore, that the Second Class Magistrate had jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. This conclusion derives support from the decision in Budhan Mahto v. Issur Singh (1907) I.L.R. 34 Cal. 926.

(2.) WE direct the record and proceedings to be returned.