Muttusami Ayyar, J.
1. The two accused in this case were convicted under Section 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act (Madras Act I of 1871) of illegal seizure of cattle and were ordered by the convicting Magistrate to pay not only the one rupee which the complainant had paid to procure the release of his cattle, but also Rs. 2-10-0, the amount of court and process fees paid by him in prosecuting his case under Section 31 of the Court Fees Act.
2. The Acting District Magistrate is of opinion that the order is illegal, in so far as it directs the payment of Rs. 2-10-0, and, adverting to the conflicting decisions on the point in Criminal Revision Cases 798 and 817 of 1883 asks for a Full Bench ruling for his future guidance.
3. In Revision Case 798 of 1883 it was held that the award of the costs of the prosecution was illegal, and in case No. 817 of 1883 it was observed that the Magistrate appeared to be competent to award them under Section 31 [q.v. supra, 7 Mad. 345] of the Court Fees Act, but that, even if not, substantial justice had been done, and the interference of the High Court was not called for. Section 22 of Act I of 1871 enacts that if the seizure be adjudged illegal, the Magistrate shall award to the complainant, for the loss caused by the seizure and detention, reasonable compensation together with all fines paid and expenses incurred by the complainant in procuring the release of the cattle. Section 31 of the Court Fees Act is, as already ruled, applicable to cases in which an offence other than one for which police officers may arrest without warrant is the subject of complaint, and the order referred to us, therefore, cannot be supported under that section. But it seems to me that the words in Section 22 of Act I of 1871, 'compensation for the loss caused by the seizure and detention,' do not necessarily refer only to such special damage as is sustained by the seizure and detention prior to the release of the cattle, but also include all expenses necessarily incurred by reason of such seizure and detention, though it may be after the release. The Legislature intended to provide a summary and expeditious mode of recovering compensation for loss caused by such seizure and detention, probably on the ground that it is generally so small that it would be deemed inexpedient to have recourse to a regular suit for its recovery. The language is wide enough to include the court and process fees necessarily paid on account of the refusal to make compensation or refund the fine paid, and a narrower construction would, I think, defeat the intention of the Legislature. I am inclined, therefore, to support the order under Section 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act.
4. I am also of opinion that we ought not to interfere in this matter. This alone was the substance of my ruling in Criminal Revision Case 817. Although I prefaced it with the remark that I was inclined to think that the Magistrate was competent to award the costs under Section 31 of the Court Fees Act, my real meaning was that they might be included in the compensation, as I have already indicated in my order, referring this case to a bench of two Judges.
5. We decline to interfere.