Judgment Kanhaiya Singh, J. 1. Petitioners Rameshwar Gope, Bhagwat Gope and Sheodayal Gope have been convicted under Sec.147 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months each. The remaining petitioners have been convicted under Sec.148 of the Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, save and except Loknath Cope who has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight-months. Further, petitioners Dharam Singh Gope, Rambrichh Gope, Ramchander Gope and Siri Gope have been convicted under Sec.324 of the Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, except Dharam Singh Cope, who has been awarded nine months rigorous imprisonment. Again, petitioners Rambrichh, Ram Chander and Siri have been convicted under Sec.19 (f) of the Arms Act, but no separate sentence has been awarded. The sentences have been made concurrent. 2. Shortly put, the prosecution case is as follows. At about 2 p.m. on 10th February, 1958, Bhageru (P.W. 1) was uprooting potato in his field. P.Ws. 2, 4, 4(a) and 6 were uprooting their rabbi crops in adjoining fields. At the same time five of the nine petitioners, namely, Siri, Rambrichha, Ramchander, Dharam Singh and Sheodayal were grazing 15 or 16 head of cattle near the adjoining river. Out of them, two buffaloes entered into the field of Kishori Gope and started grazing masuri crop standing thereon. It is alleged that Kishori protested, and with the help of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses went to seize the said two buffaloes. This led to an altercation between them and the aforesaid petitioners. Thereupon, petitioners Rambricbh, Ramchander and Siri went to their village leaving Dharam Singh and Sheodayal there and soon returned with an armed mob of 15 persons. The further case of the prosecution was that petitioners Rambrichha, Ramchander and Siri were armed with pistols and country-made guns, all unlicensed. Petitioners Lokenath and Dharam Singh had garansas in their hands. Petitioner Chando carried a bhala and the remaining three petitioners had lathis in their hands. The common object of the mob, according to the prosecution was to rescue the cattle forcibly and assault Bhageru, Kishori and others. Petitioner Lokenath ordered assault, whereupon petitioners Rambrichh and Ramchander fired gun shots on Kishori. He fell down. Bhageru went to help him, but he was also shot at by Siri. The common object of the mob, according to the prosecution was to rescue the cattle forcibly and assault Bhageru, Kishori and others. Petitioner Lokenath ordered assault, whereupon petitioners Rambrichh and Ramchander fired gun shots on Kishori. He fell down. Bhageru went to help him, but he was also shot at by Siri. When Kishori attempted to get up, Dharam Singh gave him a garasas blow on his elbow. On hearing the alarm, several persons from the village came, and the petitioners then fled away with the two buffaloes. 3. The petitioners pleaded not guilty and alleged that the prosecution case was false. 4. Both the courts have found that the prosecution case was true and that the petitioners were guilty. Accordingly, they sentenced them, as stated above. 5. In this court, the legality or propriety of the conviction of petitioners Rambrichh, Ramchander and Siri under Sec.19 (f) of the Arms Act was not challenged. Therefore, their conviction under that Section must be maintained. 6. As regards the conviction of the petitioners under the other sections of the Penal Code, the contention put forward by Mr. S. N. Sahay on their behalf was that there was no lawful seizure and the petitioners had every right to rescue the cattle and use such force as the situation demanded in self-defence. In the first place, he pointed out that there was no damage to the crops. This argument is founded upon the statement of the investigating officer (P.W. 8) to the effect that in the field in question he did not find any sign of grazing or any mark of trampling. On the other hand, the prosecution witnesses have stated that the masur crop had in fact been grazed and damaged by the cattle. The Courts below have given convincing reasons for not attaching any weight to the statement of the investigating officer. The evidence is that the field in question was dry. Therefore, no visible trampling marks would be there. Again, the masur crop was ripe and had also been partially harvested. It is, therefore, not surprising if the investigating officer did not notice any marks of grazing. When the field had been partially harvested, the marks of grazing may not have been visible. This statement of the investigating officer, therefore, is not sufficient to outweigh the positive evidence of the several prosecution witnesses. It is, therefore, not surprising if the investigating officer did not notice any marks of grazing. When the field had been partially harvested, the marks of grazing may not have been visible. This statement of the investigating officer, therefore, is not sufficient to outweigh the positive evidence of the several prosecution witnesses. This argument, therefore, lacks factual basis and must be Overruled. 7. Next, learned counsel contended that the two buffaloes had gone out of the masur field, and the complainant was not entitled in law to seize them, even if there was trespass and damage to the crop. The basis of this argument is the evidence of P.W. 6 to the effect that in the process of surrounding and seizing the cattle they went out of the field and joined the other cattle and that an attempt to surround them was made there. The contention of Mr. Sahay is that the right of the complainant to seize and impound the cattle was limited to the field itself, and when once they had gone out of the field, they could not be lawfully seized. In this connection, he referred to Sec.10 of the Cattle Trespass Act, which is in the following terms : "Cattle damaging land -- The cultivator or occupier of any land, or any person who has advanced cash for the cultivation of the crop or produce on any land, or the vendee or mortgagee of such crop or produce or any part thereof, may seize or cause to be seized any 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 within twenty four hours) to the pound established for the village in which the land is situate. * * * * *" He urged that this Section was intended to apply to a case where the seizure was effected while the cattle were still on the land trespassed upon, and the right conferred upon by this Section did not continue after the cattle had left the land. In support of his contention, he referred to two unreported decisions of this Court. (1) Criminal Appeal 349 of 1954, D/- 19-12-1955, Mahabir Gope V/s. The State and (2) Kishori Gope V/s. The State. Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 1955, D/- 17-2-1956 (Pat). In neither of these cases this question was at all canvassed. In support of his contention, he referred to two unreported decisions of this Court. (1) Criminal Appeal 349 of 1954, D/- 19-12-1955, Mahabir Gope V/s. The State and (2) Kishori Gope V/s. The State. Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 1955, D/- 17-2-1956 (Pat). In neither of these cases this question was at all canvassed. They have no relevancy at all. I do not End any valid reason to restrict the right of the owner or occupier to the seizing of the cattle trespassing upon the land and doing damage while they were on the land itself. If that be the correct interpretation of Sec.10, then in most cases the right comer-red upon the owner or occupier by this Section wilt be illusory. It is not difficult to imagine cases where before the cattle are actually seized they, on getting scent of the owner coming, will go out of the field, and if the right were to cease after they had stepped out of the field, then in most cases the object of the Cattle Trespase Act will be easily frustrated. The plain wording of Sec.10 does not warrant the narrow construction which learned counsel sought to put upon it. The expression "may seize or cause to be seized any cattle trespassing on such land and doing damage thereto" does not connote that the seizure must be effected in the process of the trespass and causation of damage on the land. To my mind, the expression "trespassing on such land and doing damage thereto" means that the owner or occupier of the field damaged should proceed to seize the cattle when they had trespassed and were causing damage. It does not, however, mean that if in the process of surrounding them, they by some means escaped out of the field, the right of the owner to seize them terminated. It is true that when the cattle have damaged the crops and escaped unnoticed, the owner or occupier cannot pursue them either to their shed or to any other field where they may be found. They must take immediate action to take hold of the cattle trespassing on the land. It is true that when the cattle have damaged the crops and escaped unnoticed, the owner or occupier cannot pursue them either to their shed or to any other field where they may be found. They must take immediate action to take hold of the cattle trespassing on the land. Where, however, the owner or occupier of the field has taken notice of trespass and damage caused by the cattle and takes immediate steps to seize them with a view to impounding them, the mere fact that in, the process of seizure which had commenced before the cattle had gone out of the field before they could be seized, does, not, in my opinion, deprive the owner of the land of the right of seizure which Sec.10 of the Act conferred upon, him. It is conceivable that in some cases the area of the field trespassed upon may be very small, with the result that the cattle may easily leave the field at the very first attempt to seize them. It cannot be said that in such cases the owner or occupier is powerless, and action under the said Act cannot be taken. In my opinion, while the right of capture of the cattle does not extend to following them to their sheds or to any other field and seizing them there, at the same time if the owner of the field attempts to seize them while actually trespassing, he is still within his right in capturing them before they have definitely made their escape from the spot, even though they were not actually inside the field when captured. In this connection, I would refer to the decision of Gruer, A. T. C. in Jagannath Singh V/s. Emperor, AIR 1934 Nag 258, and to the decision of Sir Shadi Lal, G. J. of the Lahore High Court in Waryami V/s. Emperor, 116 Ind Cas 463: (AIR 1928 Lah 692). These decisions fully support the view I have taken above. This argument of Mr. Sahay also is devoid of any merit and must be overruled. 8 In the result, the application fails and must be dismissed.