ORDER A. Misra, J. - The petitioners have been convicted u/s 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act and each of them sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. 2. The complainant's case, in brief, is that on 16-10-64, while P. W. 3, the watcher appointed by the villagers of Baligorada, with the help of P. W. 4 was taking some cattle of the petitioners to the cattle pound for having damaged paddy crop on complainant's land, petitioners forcibly rescued and took away the cattle. Petitioners in defence deny the allegations and allege that while some heads of cattle belonging to some of them were grazing on a waste land on the Baligorada side of the rivulet. P. W. 3 and some of his co-villagers seized them. On receiving information, petitioner No. 1 went there and protested against such action. On his protest, P, W. 8 attempted to assault him with an axe but petitioner No. 1 managed to snatch it away and apprehending assault left the place. Ultimately, he recovered the cattle from the jungle in the night. The other petitioners deny their presence at the place of occurrence. 3. In all, 8 witnesses were examined on the side of complainant and the defence examined two witnesses. The learned Magistrate, on a consideration of the evidence, accepted the complainant's version to be substantially true, convicted and sentenced the petitioners, as stated above. 4. The main contention of learned Counsel for petitioners is that a conviction u/s 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act can be sustained only if the prosecution proves that the seizure was strictly in accordance with Section 10 of the Act. In the present case, it is further contended that there is no specific finding that the cattle alleged to have been rescued were liable to be seized. In other words, there is no specific finding that (1) P. W. 3 was a person entitled to seize u/s 10 and (2) that actual damage to the crop had been caused by the cattle. 5. Reference is made to para 9 of the judgment where it is observed that the consistent story given by the P. Ws. In other words, there is no specific finding that (1) P. W. 3 was a person entitled to seize u/s 10 and (2) that actual damage to the crop had been caused by the cattle. 5. Reference is made to para 9 of the judgment where it is observed that the consistent story given by the P. Ws. also makes it believable that the occurrence actually took place not on the bank of the Joro, but at the deity's abode near the Bhuban road, and it is contended that the said finding refers only to the alleged place of occurrence and has nothing to do with the competency of P. W. 3 to effect the seizure or regarding the damage if any, alleged to have been caused to the paddy crop. 6. It is true that to justify a conviction u/s 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act, there should be a specific finding that the cattle rescued were liable to be seized u/s 10 which necessarily includes proof of damage having been caused. The mere absence of a specific finding would not entitle the petitioners to an acquittal where there is acceptable evidence on record in support of the prosecution case and the cattle having damaged the crop or the person who effected the seizure being entitled or authorised to seize--vide, Bhado Mandal and Others Vs. The State, . 7. Section 10 enumerates five categories of persons who are entitled to seize cattle and they include the cultivator as well as the occupier of any land. In this case, it has been contended that P. W. 3 not being the cultivator or occupier was not entitled to seize the cattle and a seizure by him will not be in accordance with law. In my opinion, such a contention has no merit. When Section 10 provides that the cultivator or occupier may seize or cause to be seized any cattle trespassing, I do not think, it is open to contend that he is not entitled to give general instructions to his watchman or other servant so instructed seizes cattle, it will not amount to the cultivator or occupier seizing or causing them to be seized within the meaning of that section. Such a contention, as the present one, was raised and negatived in the decision reported in AIR 1922 Pat 317 K. Dusadh v. Sarati Dusadh. 8. Such a contention, as the present one, was raised and negatived in the decision reported in AIR 1922 Pat 317 K. Dusadh v. Sarati Dusadh. 8. Coming to the question of damage, it is the prosecution case that the cattle damaged the paddy crop on the land of complainant in Badagaham Chhak. There is a specific finding by the learned Magistrate regarding the damage caused by the cattle. At the end of para 8 of the judgment, it is observed: Therefore, the evidence of the P. Ws. that the paddy crops of P. W. 1 in Badagaham Chhak was damaged by the cattle of the accused persons appears to be true. There is absolutely no material ire support of the defence that the accused Prasanna recovered his alleged buffaloes, by a thorough search in the jungle at an expense of Rs. 25/-. Thus, there is a finding that the cattle caused damage and P. W. 3 was entitled to seize them. This being so, the seizure was legal as it is in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 10 and the contention that rescue of the cattle will not amount to an offence u/s 24 has no merit. 9, Coming to the sentence, each of the petitioners has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- which in the circumstances appears to be excessive. Therefore, while dismissing the revision and maintaining the conviction of petitioners, the sentence of fine of Rs. 50/- awarded against each of the petitioners is reduced" to Rs. 25/-, and in default, to undergosimple imprisonment for 10 days.