JUDGMENT Bennett, J. - This is an application in revision against an order passed by the Additional. Sessions Judge of Bahraich on appeal. The applicants were convicted by a Magistrate of offences u/s 147 and Section 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They were each sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment u/s 147 and to six months' rigorous imprisonment u/s 325 read with Section 149, the sentences to run concurrently. They were also bound over u/s 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Two other co-accused were found guilty of the same offences but an order was passed against them u/s 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. All six appealed to the Additional Sessions Judge who allowed the appeal of the two men against whom the order had been passed u/s 562. He held as regards the other four men convicted, that is, the four applicants, whose case is now under consideration, that they could not be convicted u/s 147 or 149 because their object had not been unlawful, and they were not therefore members of an unlawful assembly. The Additional Sessions Judge did not find that there were less than five persons concerned nor has this been contended before me. The sole ground upon which the Additional Sessions Judge modified the conviction was that the applicants were not guilty of riot, not having been members of an unlawful assembly. At the same time the Additional Sessions Judge found that two of the applicants, Lachhman Singh and Munua Singh, were guilty u/s 325 and he maintained their conviction and sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment under this section. The conviction of the other two applicants, Ram Piarey and Lal Bachcha Singh, u/s 325 was set aside and a conviction u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code was substituted, a sentence of fine being substituted for the sentence of imprisonment. The order u/s 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was upheld in respect of all four applicants. 3. It has been contended that on the finding of the Additional Sessions Judge that no offence of riot was committed the convictions of the applicants under Sections 325 and 323 were not justified. In support of his contention the case of Dayal v. Emperor 1943 O.A. 123 : A.W.R. (C.C.) 49 : O.W.N. 202 was cited. 4. 3. It has been contended that on the finding of the Additional Sessions Judge that no offence of riot was committed the convictions of the applicants under Sections 325 and 323 were not justified. In support of his contention the case of Dayal v. Emperor 1943 O.A. 123 : A.W.R. (C.C.) 49 : O.W.N. 202 was cited. 4. If I agreed with the Additional Sessions Judge with regard to the alleged offence of rioting it would be necessary to consider whether the applicants were justified in inflicting injury in the exercise of the right of private defence of property. It appears to me, however, that it is not necessary to examine this question because in my view the Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in holding that the applicants were not guilty of riot. The allegation was that their cattle were grazing in an urd field on the morning in question when the complainants came and drove them away and were taking them to the cattle pound when they were waylaid and assaulted by the applicants and a number of other persons. I have referred to the evidence in the case and I find it clearly stated that the cattle were grazing in the complainant's field of urd and that they were found so grazing and driven away. One of the complainants also stated that they had made frequent complaints about their grazing there before. 5. The Additional Sessions Judge has observed that Section 10 of the Cattle Trespass Act authorises a cultivator or occupier to seize cattle trespassing on such land and doing damage thereto or to any crop or produce thereon and send them or cause them to be sent to the pound. The section therefore lays down that the cattle can be seized only if they are doing damage. There is no evidence in the present case, said the Additional Sessions Judge, that damage was done to the crop, and in the absence of such evidence the complainants were not justified in seizing the cattle in order to take them to the pound. It followed that if the accused rescued the cattle they were not committing an unlawful act. 6. It followed that if the accused rescued the cattle they were not committing an unlawful act. 6. Learned Counsel for the applicants has endeavoured to support this view and has also contended that in any event the applicants should not have been convicted under Sections 147 and 149 read with Section 25 unless they had also been prosecuted and convicted u/s 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act imposes a penalty on those who forcibly oppose the seizure of cattle liable to be seized under this Act. 7. Various cases were cited. The first was Dassi Goala v. Sardar Mahton (1920) 21 Cr. L.J. 640. The headnote shows that in order to maintain a conviction u/s 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act it must be proved that damage was caused to the complainant. There was the evidence of one witness in this case that he saw the cattle grazing the paddy of the complainant. The learned single Judge who heard the revision application expressed the opinion that this evidence was insufficient to show that damage was caused. 8. The next case cited was King-Emperor v. Madho (1930) 7 O.W.N. 461. The same view was taken that damage must be proved before cattle are liable to seizure u/s 11. Section 11 confers power on persons in charge of public roads etc. to remove cattle doing damage to such roads etc. or found straying thereon to send them to the nearest pound. The cattle in that case were found on a railway line, but it was not proved that they were doing damage; they were only being driven across the railway line by persons in charge of them. Clearly the facts of that case are quite different from those of the case under consideration. 9. In Babu and Another Vs. Emperor, AIR 1926 All 276 it was said that before a conviction u/s 24 can be sustained it is necessary to prove that the cattle which had been rescued were liable to be seized under the Act. In that case there was one animal, a mare, and it was said that the evidence did not disclose on whose land it had trespassed or who had brought the mare to the pound. There was therefore clearly no evidence that the mare had caused any damage. Here too the facts were quite different. 10. In that case there was one animal, a mare, and it was said that the evidence did not disclose on whose land it had trespassed or who had brought the mare to the pound. There was therefore clearly no evidence that the mare had caused any damage. Here too the facts were quite different. 10. The last case cited on this point was Chokat Ahir v. Suraj Singh (1940) 41 Cri. L.J. 257. The view taken was that a clear finding of damage done by the trespassing cattle is essential to a conviction u/s 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. 11. In the present case I am not considering a conviction u/s 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act and I am unable to agree with the learned Counsel's contention that a conviction under that section is essential before any offence under the Indian Penal Code connected with such an offence can be taken into consideration. I agree with him that it must be shown that the cattle were causing damage to land or crops thereon before it can be held that the owner was justified in seizing them and taking them to the pound. But it appears to me to be implied in the finding that the cattle were grazing the crops that they were doing damage to them. I am unable to see how cattle could graze crops without doing damage to them and where there is clear evidence of cattle being so engaged, and that evidence is accepted by the Court, I consider that nothing further is required. It was held by the Chief Court of Mysore in Eerappa v. Thippiah (1908) 9 Cr. L.J. 519, that the fact that cattle have been grazing on crops in a field is sufficient to establish damage for the purpose of Section 24 and I see no reason to take a different view. 12. On the facts as found in this case there can, in my opinion be no doubt that those concerned were justified in seizing the cattle in order to take them to the pound and that the applicants were not therefore justified in rescuing them. 13. On this view of the matter there is no case for interference with the applicant's conviction and it is unnecessary to consider the further question which would have arisen if I had accepted the view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge. 14. 13. On this view of the matter there is no case for interference with the applicant's conviction and it is unnecessary to consider the further question which would have arisen if I had accepted the view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge. 14. The application is accordingly rejected. Two of the applicants, Lachhman Singh and Munna Singh, are on bail. They must surrender and served out their sentence.