Baijnath Sahay and Others vs Emperor

Ross, J.—This is an application against an order of the Sub-Deputy Magistrate of Chatra, affirmed on appeal, on the petitioners to pay Rs. 40 to the opposite party as compensation u/s 22 of Act I of 1871. The first ground taken is that the petitioners ware not examined u/s 342 at the trial and, consequently, the proceedings were vitiated. This ground is, in my opinion, a good ground and the order, consequently, cannot stand. It is further urged that ho compensation was claimed in the petition of complaint and that no allegation was made as to the loss caused by the seizure of the cattle. For this reason also the Magistrate was not justified in awarding compensation which was not prayed for. The third ground that the person under whose orders the cattle were seized is not liable to compensate the complainant is, in my opinion, not a good ground. He is equally one of the persons who seized the cattle with those who directly seized them under his orders. But on the first two grounds the application must succeed. The order for compensation is set aside. The fine, if paid, will be refunded.