JUDGMENT 1. In this case the Petitioners were convicted under sec. 117 of the Penal Code under the following circumstances:-- The Petitioners had grown indigo on their own land for the Dholi Indigo Factory under an agreement. It does not appear whether the agreement was in writing, or merely verbal; but so much has been proved, namely, that the factory supplies the seed and pays for the labour of sowing, the raiyat receiving compensation at the rate of Rs. 12 per bigha sown with indigo, a yearly ace unit being made out on the measurement of the land. If a raiyat who has entered into an agreement fails to grow indigo he is liable, it is said, for damages and if having grown indigo he allows it to be destroyed he is also liable to be sued for damages. 2. In the present case the first cutting of the indigo grown had been made and delivered to the factory, but before the second cutting had been made a peon of the factory found a number of buffaloes on the land grazing among the indigo stumps. He seized tin in and was taking them to the pound when the Petitioners with five other men remonstrated and attacked him and rescued the buffaloes. 3. It is not denied that the buffaloes were injuring the indigo, and that the loss would fall in the first instance at least on the factory. 4. It was the duty of the peon, it has been found, to look after all indigo grown for the factory whether upon the zerait lands of the factory or under agreements upon the lands of the raiyats. 5. The question for determination before us now is whether the peon as a servant of the factory was a person authorised under see. 10 of the Cattle Trespass Act to seize the buffaloes which were damaging the indigo still on the land. That section empowers the cultivator or the occupier of any land or any person who has advanced cash for the cultivation of the crop or the produce on the land; or the vendee or the mortgagee of such crop or produce or any part thereof to seize or cause to be seized any cattle trespassing upon such land and doing damage to any crop or produce thereon or take or cause them to be taken to the pound. 6. 6. Now the factory was neither the cultivator nor the occupier of the land. It has not been found, and there is no evidence to show that the factory had advanced cash for the cultivation of the crop. Moreover, it cannot be said that the factory was the vendee or the mortgagee of the crop which was still on the land. The crop was no doubt grown for the factory under an agreement by which in due course the second cutting was to become the property of the factory when severed. It was remarked by the Sessions Judge that there could be no reasonable doubt that the factory had "an interest of one kind or another which would bring it within the section" (sec. 10 of the Cattle Trespass Act) but he did not state what in his opinion that interest really is. We agree that the factory had an interest in the crop, but it has not been shown that the interest is one which comes within the section. It may be that money had been advanced for the cultivation of the indigo but it has not been found and we have ascertained from the record that, there is no evidence that there was in this case any advance made. 7. We find that the seizure of the buffaloes was not a seizure by any person authorised to make it. There is nothing to show therefore that the Petitioners were not justified in preventing their buffaloes from being taken to the pound. The rule must accordingly be made absolute. The fine, if paid, must be refunded.