1. The petitioner was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dharmapuri, and ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 25 under Section. 22, Cattle Trespass Act.
2. Although there were four adjournments of the trial he never engaged a Vakil; he moved the Sessions Judge in revision, this Court in revision of the Sessions Judge's order, and this Court again direct.
3. The cattle trespass case was tried by the Sub-Magistrate, Tirupattur, North Arcot, and the accused who were as lax there, as the petitioner in this case, were convicted. The petitioner wants revision on the assumption that the Sub Magistrate is a better judge of fact than the Sub Divisional Magistrate. There is no such presumption. The existence of the two judgments may assist petitioner in a departmental inquiry into his conduct; but not in revisional proceedings.
4. The only other ground is that the Court could not award compensation unless it was claimed in the complaint. There is no such restriction in the Statute and petitioner relies upon the opinion of a Single Judge in Baijnath Sahay v. Emperor 72 Ind. Cas. 71; (1923) Pat. 96; 4 P. L. T. 231; 1 Pat. L. R. 34 A. I. R. 1923 Pat. 292; 24 Cri. L. J. 311 which with all respect I am not prepared to follow. Rs. ?5 seems to be fair in the circumstances of the case.
5. The petition is dismissed.