Saraswathi vs Jayaraman and Others

Padmini Jesudurai, J.—The Appellant, on whose complaint, the Respondents were tried and acquitted by the Judicial II Class Magistrate,

Saidapet in S.T.C. 546 of 1982, of an offence u/s 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act of 1871 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has preferred the

present appeal, challenging the acquittal.

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.184 of 1982 in the Court of District

Munsif, Poona-mallee, against the Respondents and had obtained interim injunction in I.A. 505 of 1982, which had been served on the

Respondents even on 10-2- 1982, While so, there on 6-5-1982, at about 12 noon, the Respondents and several others came to the cattle shed,

dismantled it and drove away the Appellant''s she buffaloe which had been tied in the shed. On 12-5-1982. The Appellant came to know, that the

buffaloe had been detained in the pound from 6-5-1982. The Appellant took possession of the buffaloe, after paying the pound charges.

During trial, on behalf of the Appellant P. Ws. 1 to 8 were 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 buffaloe and the 16th Respondent who was one

among them produced the buffaloe, which was kept in the pound till 12-5-1982, when it was released.

The Respondent when questioned denied having taken part in any occurrence.

They have no evidence to offer oral or documentary.

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 A-16 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.

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 ease, 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.

The question that arises for consideration is whether the acquittal by the trial Court could be sustained;

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 A-1 to A-8, 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 buffaloe impounded. The offence is one

u/s 20of 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.

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 S. 7, 8, and 9 of the Chapter. Section 10 and 11 occurring in Chapter III indicated the circumstances

under which cattle could be impounded. They are as follows:-

S. 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 of produce 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.

S. 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 dam age 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 Section 10 makes it clear that it is only those cattle that are found trespassing on land, wherein crops have been cultivated, and

are found causing damage to any crop or produce thereon, that can be impounded. Similarly, u/s 11, cattle which are found doing damage to

public roads, plea sure grounds, plantations, canals, drainage work, embankments or found straying there on can be impounded. The pre requisites

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, Section 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.