JUDGMENT : BLAIR, J. As far as I can interpret the facts laid before me, no offence under section 167 of Act I of 1900 has been committed. The recommendation of the District Magistrate is that the conviction be set aside upon the ground that what was done by Patandin, was not done of his own free will, but by order of his master; but there is another and much more serious objection to the conviction. The Joint Magistrate, who convicted the accused, says in his explanation that “this case is one of a series of cases instituted to put a stop to the growing nuisance of cattle trespass. I assume, there-fore, that cattle trespass is also proved” Section 167 provides that “whoever willfully lets loose any horse or other animal, so as to cause injury, danger, alarm, or annoyance to any person, shall be punished with fine.” 2. It is quite evident that trespass to land is in a wholly different category. The scope of the section is clearly to prevent danger, alarm or annoyance to any person. It seems to me that the interpretation, put on the section by the learned Magistrate is wholly false in principle. A punitive enactment must always be strictly construed and to read this section as applying to injury to land is in my opinion a gross misinterpretation, as no offence has been committed. I set aside the conviction and sentence, and I direct that the fine, if paid, be refunded. I have no information whether the accused has suffered imprisonment in default of payment of fine. If he has, I am very sorry that the law offers him no redress. That is a reason and a cogent reason why Magistrates inflicting small sentences should be most careful to avoid doing an injury that cannot be repaired.