Skip to content


Kotakonda Venkatesulu Naidu Vs. Golla Chittappa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1938Mad820; (1938)2MLJ285
AppellantKotakonda Venkatesulu Naidu
RespondentGolla Chittappa
Excerpt:
- - this certainly is a misconception and there is little doubt that the magistrate must have allowed this to weigh in his mind in assessing the amount of compensation, because just before making the order of compensation, he observes that the complainant engaged a vakil and must have incurred a good deal of expenditure for the prosecution of the case against the accused. he must have made some addition to the amount of compensation on this account and all that can be done in a case like this is to make some substantial reduction so that the compensation may be fixed on a legal basis......row, j.1. i see no sufficient reason to think that the order of compensation made by the taluk magistrate in this case under section 22 of the cattle trespass act is not just. in view of the concurrent finding of the courts below, it must be held that the seizure and detention of the sheep and goats belonging to the complainant and his party were wrongful and illegal and i do not think it makes much difference to the jurisdiction of the magistrate if the person who is responsible for the wrongful or illegal detention happens to be a forest officer who claims to act under colour of the forest act, if as a matter of fact, the seizure and detention had nothing to do with any forest. it is however contended that the amount of compensation awarded, namely, rs. 75 is excessive and.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Pandrang Row, J.

1. I see no sufficient reason to think that the order of compensation made by the Taluk Magistrate in this case under Section 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act is not just. In view of the concurrent finding of the Courts below, it must be held that the seizure and detention of the sheep and goats belonging to the complainant and his party were wrongful and illegal and I do not think it makes much difference to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate if the person who is responsible for the wrongful or illegal detention happens to be a Forest Officer who claims to act under colour of the Forest Act, if as a matter of fact, the seizure and detention had nothing to do with any forest. It is however contended that the amount of compensation awarded, namely, Rs. 75 is excessive and that this excessive amount was arrived at as a result of a misconception of the Magistrate that he was at liberty to include in the compensation payable under Section 22 of the Act the fees paid by the complainant to the pleader employed by him for the purpose of the prosecution of this case. This certainly is a misconception and there is little doubt that the Magistrate must have allowed this to weigh in his mind in assessing the amount of compensation, because just before making the order of compensation, he observes that the complainant engaged a vakil and must have incurred a good deal of expenditure for the prosecution of the case against the accused. It is impossible now to ascertain exactly what the amount of the fee was and it is impossible to say that the Magistrate himself had any clear idea of the amount of the fee. He must have made some addition to the amount of compensation on this account and all that can be done in a case like this is to make some substantial reduction so that the compensation may be fixed on a legal basis. It is suggested by the learned Public Prosecutor that Rs. 25 may be regarded as the fee of the lawyer and that the amount of compensation fixed by the Taluk Magistrate may be reduced by Rs. 25. This suggestion appears to be reasonable and I therefore vary the order of the Taluk Magistrate by reducing the amount of compensation, namely, Rs. 75 to Rs. 50. In other respects, the petition is dismissed.


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