Skip to content


Hemodhar Sarmah Vs. Anandiram Ram Saikia and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in154Ind.Cas.197
AppellantHemodhar Sarmah
RespondentAnandiram Ram Saikia and anr.
Excerpt:
cattle trespass act (i of 1871), section 20 - complaint after 10 days of seizure, if time-barred. - orders.k. ghose, j.1. the petitioner in this rule has been convicted under section 22 of act i of 187l, cattle trespass act. one of the grounds on which the rule was issued is that although the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on september 29, 1933, the complaint was not filed until october 10, 1933, and that therefore it was time-barred under section 20 of the act. the learned magistrate in showing cause admits the correctness of this ground which does not appear to have been taken in the court below. i accordingly make the rule absolute. the petitioner is acquitted and directed to be set at liberty. the fine, if paid, must be refunded.
Judgment:
ORDER

S.K. Ghose, J.

1. The petitioner in this Rule has been convicted under Section 22 of Act I of 187l, Cattle Trespass Act. One of the grounds on which the Rule was issued is that although the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on September 29, 1933, the complaint was not filed until October 10, 1933, and that therefore it was time-barred under Section 20 of the Act. The learned Magistrate in showing cause admits the correctness of this ground which does not appear to have been taken in the Court below. I accordingly make the Rule absolute. The petitioner is acquitted and directed to be set at liberty. The fine, if paid, must be refunded.


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