JUDGMENT : A. Misra, J. - The Petitioner has been convicted u/s 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 51/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. According to complainant (p.w. 1), on 30.12.1964 he seized Petitioner's bullock which damaged his black gram crop and was driving it to the cattle pound when Petitioner forcibly rescued it, The defence is a template denial. The learned Magistrate relying on the evidence of p.ws. 1 to 3 accepted the prosecution case, found Petitioner guilty u/s 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act, convicted and sentenced him, as stated above. In appeal, the said conviction and sentence were confirmed. 3. Learned Counsel for Petitioner assails the conviction on two grounds. Firstly, it is contended that the evidence of p.ws. 2 and 3 refers to the rescue of cattle and not particularly to the bullock. As such, there is no corroboration of p.w. 1's evidence that the bullock was forcibly rescued while being taken to the cattle pound. Secondly, it is urged that in the absence of proof that the bullock of the Petitioner actually caused damage to the crop of p.w. 1, the seizure was illegal and even if p.w. 1's case is accepted, the rescue of the bullock is protected by virtue of exercise of right of private defence of property. I do not find any merit in either of these contentions. 4. So far as the first contention is concerned, it relates to a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence. In revision, it is not the duty of this Court to re-appreciate the evidence or interfere with a finding of fact on the ground of sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence. Apart from it, it is not correct to say that there is absence of corroboration of p.w. 1's evidence regarding the rescue of the bullock. P.w. 2 has stated that p.w. 1 had tied a bullock and he was driving the cow and calf, the two other animals which are said to have committed damage along with the bullock. p.w. 1 has stated that Petitioner took away the bullock which he had seized. Both the Courts have accepted this evidence and J. Bee no valid reason to interfere with this finding. 5. p.w. 1 has stated that Petitioner took away the bullock which he had seized. Both the Courts have accepted this evidence and J. Bee no valid reason to interfere with this finding. 5. As regards the second contention, it is urged that unless p.w. 1 proves actual damage having been committed to his crop, the seizure will be deemed to be illegal u/s 10 of the Cattle Trespass Act and the rescue of the bullock illegally seized will not amount to an offence. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in Ram Ratan alias Ratan Ahir and Others Vs. The State of Bihar and Another, observed: We are of opinion that when a person seizes cattle on the ground that they were trespassing on his land and causing damage to his crop or produce and gives out that he was taking them to the pound, he commits no offence of theft however mistaken he may be about his right to that land or crop. The remedy of the owner of the cattle so seized is to take action u/s 20 of the Act. He has no right to use force to reseau cattle so seized. In the present case, p.w. 1 was taking the bullock giving out that he was taking it to the pound as it trespassed on his land and caused damage to his crop. Even if that is not true or the impression is mistaken, the remedy is u/s 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act. It is not available to the Petitioner to exercise any right of private defence of property and use force for the rescue of such seized cattle. 6. In the result, the revision is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed