High CourtsDivision Bench(1896) 03 MAD CK 0001

Queen-Empress vs Lakshmi Nayakan

Madras High Court · Decided on 13 March 1896 · Citation: (1896) ILR (Mad) 238

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J · Benson, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 125 words
1.

The District Magistrate is right instating that no appeal lies against an order u/s 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act (I of 1871) Queen-Empress v.

Raya Lakshma ILR 10 Bom. 230 and Dhiku v. Deno Nath Deb ILR 15 Cal. 712 .

2.

There is evidence that the seizure was illegal and the Sub-Magistrate believed it. The Joint Magistrate, however, considered it ''insufficient.'' The

High Court, as a Court of Revision, will not, in such a case, weigh the evidence, for to do so would, in effect, be to admit an appeal where the law

does not allow it. So much, however, of the Sub-Magistrate''s order as directs that imprisonment be awarded in default of payment of

compensation is illegal, and is set aside.