MANOHAR Vs. RAMDULAREY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOHIUDDIN , A.J.C. 1. The applicant, Manohar who is a grazier of mouza Deori filed an application Under Section 22, Cattle Trespass Act, against the non-applicant, Ramdularey for illegal seizure of cattle which were in his charge on 23rd August 1928. The complaint was filed in the Court of Mr. C.P. Cleophas, 2nd Class Magistrate, Bilaspur, on 1st September 1928, and the learned Magistrate after examining the complainant ordered that a summons be issued to the accused Ramdularey. On the next date of hearing, which was on 18th September 1928, an objection was raised by the pleader for the accused about the valid presentation of the complaint on the ground that Manohar not being the owner of the cattle, could not file a complaint Under Section 21, Cattle Trespass Act, as he was not an agent of the owners of the cattle. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that Manohar could not file the complaint as he was neither the owner nor the agent, and acquitted the accused Under Section 275, Criminal P.C. as process was already issued to the accused who had attended the. Court in obedience to the orders of the Court.

(2.) THE question for consideration now is whether Manohar can be considered to be an agent personally acquainted with the circumstances, within the meaning of Section 21, Cattle Trespass Act. Proceedings under Chap. 5, Cattle Trespass Act, are quasi-civil in their nature, a Magistrate being empowered to assess and enforce, in a summary manner, compensation for an injury for which a civil action might be brought. There is no doubt that a complaint Under Section 22, Cattle Trespass Act, can be lodged either by the person whose cattle have been seized or by an agent personally acquainted with the circumstances. Manohar is certainly not a person whose cattle have been seized and therefore it must be found whether he is an agent personally acquainted with the circumstances. The word "agent" has not been defined anywhere in the Cattle Trespass Act. An agent, as defined Under Section 182, Contract Act, is a person employed to do any act for another or to represent another in dealings with third persons. The authority of an agent may be express or implied. An authority is said to be implied when it is to be inferred from the circumstances of the case and things spoken or written, or the ordinary course of dealing, may be accounted circumstances of the case. A grazier is entrusted with the charge of the cattle during the period the cattle are with him for the purpose of grazing and therefore he may be presumed to be an agent of the owners of the cattle during the time the cattle are in his charge. Such an authority must be presumed from the circumstances of the case. It is clear from the wording of Section 21, Cattle Trespass Act, that the legislature intended to authorize some other persons besides the owner of cattle to file complaints Under Section 22, Cattle Trespass Act. The person personally acquainted with the circumstances can only be the person who is in charge of the cattle when the seizure is made, and therefore it seems to me that the person who is in charge the cattle at the time of seizure is the person to be included in the class of persons who come under the category of an agent personally acquainted with the circumstances" mentioned in Section 21, Cattle Trespass Act. I am fortified in this view of the matter by a decision of Hallifax, A.J.C., who, in Tuka Ram v. Ganpat A.I.R. 1923 Nag. 156. held that one of the owners of the cattle which were seized could file complaint on behalf of the other owners.

(3.) IN view of the fact that the case was not enquired into on its merits and the complaint was thrown out on a technical point, though an order of acquittal had to be passed because summons was issued to the accused, this is a fit case in which this Court must interfere in revision with an order of acquittal and set it aside. The order is accordingly set aside and It is directed that the case should be tried on its merits.