GUIRAM GHOSE Vs. SUDHIR KUMAR MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application raises an important question of law, viz., whether an appeal is competent from an order passed by a Magistrate awarding compensation under Sec. 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871. The case has been referred to the Division Bench by K.C. Sen, Jas there are conflicting decisions of several High Courts in India on the point but no decision either of a Division Bench or of a single Judge of this Court.

(2.) The facts in connection with which the question arises are briefly these: The opposite parties seized some 52 heads of cattle belonging to the Petitioners and put them to a pound on the ground that the cattle had strayed into their, that is to say, the opposite parties' lands and damaged the standing crops. The Petitioners got the cattle released on payment of Rs. 128. They then made a complaint to the Sub -divisional Magistrate, under Sec. 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act, that their cattle had been wrongfully seized and detained by the opposite parties and prayed for an order for compensation. They also alleged that at the time of seizing the cattle the opposite parties had taken recourse to criminal intimidation. The learned Magistrate framed charges against the opposite parties under Sec. 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act and Sec. 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Considering the evidence before him he found that there was no lawful ground for the seizure and detention of the cattle, but he was not satisfied that the charge under Sec. 506 of the Indian Penal Code was clearly proved. So he acquitted the opposite parties of that charge but directed them under Sec. 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act to pay to the Petitioners Rs. 400 as compensation and Rs. 150 as costs.

(3.) The opposite parties appealed to the Court of Sessions against this order. The Petitioners, who were the Respondents in the appeal, took the objection that an order for payment of costs under Sec. 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act was not appealable. The learned Sessions Judge overruled the objection and on merits he found that, as the evidence stood, there was no reason to disbelieve the defence case that the crops of the opposite parties were damaged. According to him the seizure and detention of the cattle were justified. He therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the Magistrate's order for payment of compensation and costs. It is against the order of the Sessions Judge that the present rule has been issued.