Judgment.- A complaint was filed by the Forest Officer, Narasapur Range before the Munsif-Magistrate, Medak, against A-1 to A-4 for contravening the provisions of section 20(1)(c)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Forests Act, 1967 and also under, section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871. 2. The allegation was that the accused in the said case, on 14th August, 1968, at about 7-00 a.m., were found browsing 100 goats illicitly in the reserve forest block of Kowdipally. They were seized by the Special Party and the names of graziers were noted. After the seizure, the goats were brought to the roadside and the Range Officer was making panchanama. Meanwhile number of persons came armed with lathies and after assaulting the Special Party with force took away the goats and they also snatched away the papers from the possession of the Range Officer. On these allegations the complaint was filed. The learned Magistrate by her order, dated 23rd October, 1969, dismissed the complaint mainly on the ground that in the column 4 of the complaint, the section under which the offence was committed was not mentioned correctly. The relevant observation is as under: “Therefore when in column No. 4 of the complaint a particular Act is mentioned stating that the offence is committed for the contravention of the said Act, the sections should be correctly stated and should not be ambiguous bearing room for doubt since the benefit of the least doubt in criminal cases should be given to the accused. Therefore, holding that the complaint is not correct and specific regarding the nature of the offence committed by the accused, the benefit of doubt is given to the accused and he is acquitted.” 3. It is against this order the appeal has been preferred. I think the order of the Magistrate is unsustainable. Obviously, the Magistrate did not look into the complaint, particularly the last portion thereof wherein it was clearly stated that A-1 to A-5 had contravened the provisions of section 20(1)(c)(ii) of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act of 1967, and have rendered themselves liable for punishment under section 20(d)(ii) of the said Act. The same accused persons i.e., A-1 to A-5 and also A-6 and A-7 by unlawfully rescuing the seized goats have also rendered themselves liable for punishment under section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act of 1871. The same accused persons i.e., A-1 to A-5 and also A-6 and A-7 by unlawfully rescuing the seized goats have also rendered themselves liable for punishment under section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act of 1871. In this part of the complaint the offences which the accused had committed and rendered themselves liable for punishment has been clearly stated. The mere omission to mention the relevant section in column 4 was not sufficient to justify the conclusion that the charge was vague. Further it is well settled that merely because a section has been omitted to be quoted, the complaint is not liable to be dismissed on that account. The Magistrate on evidence and facts of that case can always correct the mistake. I, therefore, hold that the order of the Magistrate is liable to be set aside. Further, the Magistrate has not taken into consideration the fact that there was also a charge against the accused of rescuing the goats by use of force under section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act, provides a period of 10 days for a complaint against seizure of cattle and the detention in contravention of the Act. The case on hand is not based on the fact that the cattle had been wrongly detained. The ruling cited by the learned Magistrate has no application. 4. The offence, however, was committed on 14th August, 1968, and we are now in the end of December, 1970, that is, a period of 2 1/2 years has elapsed. Having regard to the nature of offence, etc., I do not think that this is a fit case wherein a fresh enquiry would be justified. Accordingly holding that the order of the Magistrate is unsustainable, that is, allowing the appeal, I do not remand it for fresh disposal to the lower Court. A.B.K. ----- Appeal allowed; Not remanded due to long lapse of time.