Skip to content


Queen-empress Vs. Lakshmi Nayakan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1896)ILR19Mad238
AppellantQueen-empress
RespondentLakshmi Nayakan
Cases Referred and Dhiku v. Deno Nath Deb I.L.R.
Excerpt:
cattle trespass act - act i of 1871, sections 22, 25--no appeal--criminal procedure code, section 404. - 1. the district magistrate is right instating that no appeal lies against an order under section 22 of the cattle trespass act (i of 1871) queen-empress v. raya lakshma i.l.r. 10 bom. 230 and dhiku v. deno nath deb i.l.r. 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.
Judgment:

1. The District Magistrate is right instating that no appeal lies against an order under Section 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act (I of 1871) Queen-Empress v. Raya Lakshma I.L.R. 10 Bom. 230 and Dhiku v. Deno Nath Deb I.L.R. 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.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //