JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a revision petition against an order of acquittal passed by the Munsif-Magistrate of Anandpur in a case u/s 384 of the Indian Penal Code tried by him against all the members of the opposite party. 2. The Petitioner's case was that on the 13th November 1954, 68 heads of cattle and 14 heads of sheep of his were grazing on sedang waste-land. He alleged that the opposite party came in body, removed them to their village, and when requested by P. W. I. refused to release them unless a payment of Re. 1/- was made for each head of cattle and sheep. He further alleged that they threatened to impound the same if the money was not paid. The Petitioner finding no other remedy paid a some of Rs. 82 in all and released his animals, and then brought the present case. The defence of some members of the opposite party was that the animals damaged the paddy crops of one Sankarsan Behera and therefore they were brought to the house of opposite party Bula Jena, were they were released on payment of pound charges of Rs. 82/-. 3. It appears, however that there is no cattle pound in the village and opposite party Bula Jena is not a pound-keeper. But this does not materially affect the merits of the case. 4. The learned trying magistrate thought that it was unnecessary for the come to a finding as to whether the seizure of the cattle by the members of the opposite party was justified or not. He observed that even- if the seizure was illegal the Petitioner had a remedy u/s 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act and that, in any case on the facts as alleged by him the offence u/s 384 of the Indian Penal Code was not made out. 5. The learned Magistrate, has committed an error of law in construing Section 884 of the Indian Penal Code. If a person is threatened with injury to himself and is thereby dishonestly induced to part with money, the offence of extortion is committed in respect of that person. The expression 'Injury' has pen defined in Section 44 of the Indian Penal Code as including not only injury to any person but also injury to his property. If a person is threatened with injury to himself and is thereby dishonestly induced to part with money, the offence of extortion is committed in respect of that person. The expression 'Injury' has pen defined in Section 44 of the Indian Penal Code as including not only injury to any person but also injury to his property. Consequently, if a person's cattle are illegally seized & the person who seizes the same refuses to release them and threatens to impound them, unless he was paid some money, such action on his part would amount to threat of injury to the property of the person whose cattle are thus illegally seized and would amount to extortion. The learned Magistrate ay, in this connection, read with profit the decision of the Allahabad High Court ILR 46 All 81. 6. It is true that for the same act prosecution u/s 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act may lie against the offenders, but the mere fact that there is an alternative remedy for such illegal seizure of cattle would not justify the Magistrate taking the view prosecution u/s 884 at Indian Penal Code would not lie. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act clearly says that where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments the offender is liable to be prosecuted" and liable to be punished under either or any of these enactments. The only limitation is that he is not liable to be punished twice for the same offence. Hence in the present case where the opposite party is charged u/s 884 of the Indian Penal Code the learned Magistrate should have carefully examined the evidence on record and come to his own finding as to whether the seizure of the animals was legal or illegal. If it was legal the question of extortion does not arise. If the seizure was found to be illegal the further question as to whether the money was obtained dishonestly would arise and the Magistrate must come to a finding on this point, on the evidence on record. 7. I would, therefore, set aside the order of acquittal and direct the case to be re-heard by another competent Magistrate to be selected by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Anandpur. Neither party will be allowed to adduce additional evidence. 7. I would, therefore, set aside the order of acquittal and direct the case to be re-heard by another competent Magistrate to be selected by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Anandpur. Neither party will be allowed to adduce additional evidence. The Magistrate should, after hearing the parties, write out the judgment on the basis of the evidence already on record bearing in mind the observations in this judgment. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Case remanded.