Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1988 DIGILAW 165 (MAD)

Saraswathi v. Jayaraman

1988-03-22

PADMINI JESUDURAI

body1988
Judgment : The appellant, on whose complaint, the respondents were tried and acquitted by the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Saidapet in S.T.C. No.546 of 1982, of an offence under Sec.20. of the Cattle Trespass Act of 1871 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has preferred the present appeal, challenging the acquittal. 2. Facts alleged in the complaint briefly are: There was a civil litigation between the appellant and the respondents, regarding the enjoyment of the place where the cattle shed of the appellant was located and consequently the appellant had filed O.S.No.184 of 1982 in the Court of District Munsif, Poonamallee, against the respondents and had obtained interim injunction in I.A.No.505 of 1982, which had been served on the respondents ever on 10.2.1982. While so, there on 6.5.1982, about 12 noon, the respondents and several others came to the cattle shed, dismantled it and drove away the appellant’s she buffalo which had been tied in the shed. On 12.5.1982, the appellant came to know, that the buffalo had been detained in the pound from 6.5.1982. The appellant took possession of the buffalo, after paying the pound charges. 3. During trial, on behalf of the appellant, P.Ws.1 to8were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. The appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and examined P.Ws.2 to 6 to corroborate her regarding the occurrence. P.W.7 was the Sub Inspector of Police of the concerned police station, who had received the complaint given by the appellant on 6.5.1982. P.W.8 who was the Health Inspector attached to Pallavaram Cantonment Board, stated that on 6.5.1982 at about 6.15 p.m. about 4 or 5 persons, brought a buffalo and the 16th respondent who was one among them produced the buffalo, which was kept in the pound till 12.5.1982, when it was released. 4. The respondent when questioned denied having taken part in any occurrence. They have no evidence to offer oral or documentary. 5. The trial Court on an analysis of the above evidence found, that the evidence of the witnesses were vague, inconclusive and contradictory and while there was no evidence to connect A16 with the occurrence, there was no evidence to connect any of the other respondents with the impounding. He, therefore acquitted, the respondents. The aggrieved complainant has preferred the appeal. 6. He, therefore acquitted, the respondents. The aggrieved complainant has preferred the appeal. 6. It was contended on behalf of the appellant, that the application of evidence by the trial Court is perverse and the reasons given for rejecting the prosecution case, are erroneous and shaky, Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents, inter alia, contended that the Act will not apply to cases, where due to some civil disputes, the cattle shed is dismantled and the cattle tied in the shed,, is removed and impounded. The Act is intended to | tackle trespass and damage by cattle. 7. The question that arises for consideration is whether the acquittal by the trial Court should be sustained. 8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the judgment of this trial Court does not exhibit any perversity or any erroneous approach. The only evidence that is to some extent consistent is with reference to A1 to A8, and that is of P.Ws.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. There is no satisfactory evidence regarding the other respondents. These witnesses have not mentioned about the presence or participation of the 16th respondent. On the contrary, the evidence of P.W.5 is that it was the 16th respondent, who got the buffalo impounded. The offence is one under Sec.20 of the Cattle Trespass Act. There is, therefore, no satisfactory evidence that any of the respondents participated in the occurrence and committed any offence under the Cattle Trespass Act. 9. The next question is, whether the Act will apply to the facts of the prosecution case, even if taken to be true. The Cattle Trespass Act, as the preamble shows, has been passed for dealing with trespass of cattle. Under Chapter II, pounds have been established and pound keepers appointed their duties are mentioned in Secs.7, 8 and 9 of the Chapter. Secs.10 and 11 occurring in Chapter HI indicated the circumstances under which cattle could be impounded. The Cattle Trespass Act, as the preamble shows, has been passed for dealing with trespass of cattle. Under Chapter II, pounds have been established and pound keepers appointed their duties are mentioned in Secs.7, 8 and 9 of the Chapter. Secs.10 and 11 occurring in Chapter HI indicated the circumstances under which cattle could be impounded. They are as follows: “Sec.10: The Cultivator or Occupier of any land or any person who had advanced cash for the cultivation of the crop or produce on any land or the vendee or mortgagee, of such crop , 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 24 hours) to the pound established for the village in which the land is situate. All officers of police shall, when required, aid in preventing (a) resistance to such seizures and (b) rescues from persons making such seizures. Sec.11: Persons in charge of public roads, pleasure grounds, plantations, canals, drainage works, embankments and the like and officers of police, may seize or cause to be seized any cattle doing damage to such roads, grounds, plantations, canals, drainage works, embankments and the like, or the sides or slopes of such roads, canals drainage works or embankments or found straying thereon, and shall (send them or cause them to be sent within 24 hours) to the nearest pound.” A reading of Sec.10 makes it clear that it is only those cattle that arc found trespassing on land, wherein crops have been cultivated, and are found causing damage to any crops or produce thereon, that can be impounded. Similarly, under Sec.11 cattle which are found doing damage to public roads, pleasure grounds, plantations canals, drainage work, embankments or found straying thereon can be impounded. The pre-requisite for impounding cattle are, trespass on land and causing damage. It, therefore, follows that where the allegation is that a cattle shed, due to private enmity is dismantled and an animal which was tied inside the cattle shed is driven away and impounded the Act can have no application. If the Act can have no application, Sec.20 of the Act empowering the owner of the cattle seized under the Act, to make a complaint, can also have no application. If the Act can have no application, Sec.20 of the Act empowering the owner of the cattle seized under the Act, to make a complaint, can also have no application. The present complaint by the appellant is misconceived. The acts alleged in the complaint do not bring the case within the purview of the Cattle Trespass Act. The acquittal has, therefore to be sustained on that ground as well. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.