Skip to content


In Re: Subbaraya Pillai and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad786(1); 31Ind.Cas.372
AppellantIn Re: Subbaraya Pillai and ors.
Excerpt:
cattle trespass act (i of 1871), section 10 - trespass--watchman seizing cattle, legality of. - .....of the act. the section says that the cultivator or occupier may 'seize or cause to be seized any cattle trespassing:' and we do not think that it can be contended that he is not entitled to give general instructions to his watchman or other servants to seize all trespassing cattle or that if the watchman or servant so instructed seizes cattle, the cultivator or occupier does not cause them to be seized within the meaning of the section. in the present case the legality of the 1st prosecution witness's action in this respect was not attacked in the lower courts. he deposed that he was employed to watch the crops and that he had impounded many cattle. we do not feel called upon to direct evidence to be taken on this point in view of the late stage at which it is raised and we can find no.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The only ground for revision argued before us is that the unpounding of the cattle by prosecution witness No. 1, who is a watchman employed by the owner of the seed bed, was not authorised by Section 10 of the Act. The section says that the cultivator or occupier may 'seize or cause to be seized any cattle trespassing:' and we do not think that it can be contended that he is not entitled to give general instructions to his watchman or other servants to seize all trespassing cattle or that if the watchman or servant so instructed seizes cattle, the cultivator or occupier does not cause them to be seized within the meaning of the section. In the present case the legality of the 1st prosecution witness's action in this respect was not attacked in the lower Courts. He deposed that he was employed to watch the crops and that he had impounded many cattle. We do not feel called upon to direct evidence to be taken on this point in view of the late stage at which it is raised and we can find no ground for interference with the conviction.

2. The criminal revision petition is dismissed.


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