JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - This revision is against an order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhadrak, calling upon the two Petitioners to pay a total sum of Rs. 50/- by way of compensation to the opposite party u/s 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The Petitioners in this revision questioned only the legality of the compensation of Rs. 50/- awarded u/s 22 of the Act in favour of the complainant, opposite party herein, and so it is not necessary for me to deal with the facts of the case. 3. At the very outset, Mr. P. Kar, the learned Counsel for the opposite party, challenged the maintainability of this revision on the ground that a person against whom an order u/s 22 of the Act is made is a person convicted on a trial within the meaning of that section, and an appeallies against such a conviction. In support of his above contention he cited the decision in Muruvan and Others Vs. Ramabadra Naidu wherein it was held: It is now well settled that since the word "offence" as defined by I Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure includes an act in respect of which a complaint may be made u/s 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act a person against whom an order u/s 22 is made is a person "convicted on a trial" within the meaning of this section and an appeal against the conviction lies, therefore, u/s 407, Code of Criminal Procedure. Rsmaswami J. (as he then was) in this case on a consideration of large number of decisions and various recognised authoritative texts on the subject accepted with approval the Bench decision in ILR 29 Mad 5172, wherein it was held that by Section 4(o), Code of Criminal Procedure the word "Offence" includes an act in respect of which a complaint may be made u/s 20 of the Act; and it follows that a person against whom an order u/s 22 of the Act is made is a "person convicted on a trial" and as such he can prefer an appeal against the said order. On referring to G.P. Roy's (later Justice); The Code of Criminal Procedure (Vol. On referring to G.P. Roy's (later Justice); The Code of Criminal Procedure (Vol. 11-1914 at p. 57 Ramaswami J quotes: Now that the illegal seizure of cattle under colour of Act I of 1871 has been declared to be an offence it would seem that the 'compensation' allowed by Section 22 of the Act must be regarded as a fine or at any rate as a punishment. The same observations are also made in Ratan Lal's Code of Criminal Procedure, 2nd Edition at p. 343 citing and relying on ILR 29 Mad 5172 and ILR 34 Cal 9263. 4. Mrs. Padhi, appearing for the Petitioners, cited a Bench decision in Shankerlal Vs. Ramshanker and Another wherein it is held that an order awarding a compensation u/s 22 is not an order of conviction nor is an order refusing to award compensation, one, of acquittal. That being so, the provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to appeals against convictions and acquittals do not apply to an order u/s 22. Ramsswami J's decision in Muruvan's case was not cited before their Lordships in the above Shankerlal's case. The decision in Muruvan's case though of a Single Judge, was arrived at on an elaborate consideration and discussion of a large number of decisions of different High Courts and of views expressed in the standard and recognised texts on Code of Criminal Procedure. The view taken in this decision appeals to me and I accept the same. 5. In Muruvan's case the compensation awarded u/s 22 of the Act was Rs. 100/- and the said amount being regarded as the fine imposed against the person convicted in the said trial, an appeal lay against the said order. In this case before me a compensation of Rs. 50/- only having been ordered by a Magistrate 1st Class, no appeal lies in this case, as the fine imposed, which if the compensation awarded, is within the restrictive provisions of Section 413 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this view of the matter this revision is maintainable. 6. It was contended on behalf of the Petitioners that the Court below having found that the loss sustained by the opposite party for releasing his cattle from the kine house being only Rs. 30/- there was no scope u/s 22 of the Act to fix the compensation at Rs. 50/-. 6. It was contended on behalf of the Petitioners that the Court below having found that the loss sustained by the opposite party for releasing his cattle from the kine house being only Rs. 30/- there was no scope u/s 22 of the Act to fix the compensation at Rs. 50/-. In Section 22 of the Act the compensation provided is "reasonable compensation not exceeding Rs. 100/- to be paid by the person who made the seizure or detained the cattle together with all fines paid and expenses incurred by the complainant in procuring the release of the cattle". In the present case the finding of the Court below is that the complainant sustained a loss of Rs. 30/- only for releasing the cattle from the kine house where they were illegally impounded. In amassing the quantum of compensation the Court stated that these two Petitioners "should pay sum of Rs. 50/- to the complainant towards compensation which includes the tentative expenses of his present litigations, the fines paid and expenses incurred by him in procuring the release of the cattle on the relevant date from the Kine -house at Nalagara." The quantum awarded as competition was challenged on behalf of the Petitioners as arbitrary being without any basis or date. It was also contended that the compensation an owed was illegal as u/s 22 of the Act., cost of litigation could not be taken into consideration. In this connection reference may be made to the decision in Janardan Sahu v. Arakhit Sahu 33 C.L.T. 226, where it is held: What Section 22 provides is a reasonable compensation and that reasonable compensation will naturally mean the compensation which as a result of the wrong act done by the accused is found sufficient to compensate the complainant for the loss incurred by him. In this case, the loss caused in releasing the buffaloes and incurring cost and litigation was used by the learned Magistrate only as a measure of compensation which, in the circumstances of the case, the complainant was entitled to receive. Therefore it cannot be said that in law any compensation for incurring cost and litigation cannot be allowed at all. In this case, the loss caused in releasing the buffaloes and incurring cost and litigation was used by the learned Magistrate only as a measure of compensation which, in the circumstances of the case, the complainant was entitled to receive. Therefore it cannot be said that in law any compensation for incurring cost and litigation cannot be allowed at all. In the above decision it is also observed that in law it will always be necessary in order to justify the claim for compensation to give broad details either in the complaint petition or in the evidence as to the loss incurred for costs and litigations, and in the absence of such details it is always open to the Court to say that the complainant may not be entitled to any arbitrary figure. Also see Padma Charan Behera and Ors. v. Rangadhar Das 16 C.L.T. 51. In the present case before me the complainant in his complaint petition, initial deposition and also in his evidence in Court mentioned that for the purpose of releasing the cattle he had to make a payment of Rs. 3/-. No further detail wits furnished nor any specific amount claimed on account of expenses on litigation, and so it was not for the Court to arbitrarily fix an amount and add the same to the specific account of Rs. 30/- claimed by the complainant. In this view of the matter the compensation awarded should have been Rs. 30/- only and not Rs. 50/-. Accordingly, the quantum of compensation as allowed by the trial Court is reduced from Rs. 50/- to Rs. 30/- only. 7. In the result, therefore, the revision is allowed in part.