9911796707
TMI Blog1950 (1) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the complaint; (ii) That neither in the petition of complaint nor in the evidence, the complainant made any mention of the loss or, at any rate, the items or heads of such loss, and in the absence of such allegations and proof, no compensation beyond the fines paid to the pound-keeper, being a sum of ₹ 7/8 should have been awarded to the Complainant and lastly, (iii) that the compensation awarded is highly excessive. 2. For the first contention, relience is placed upon Section 20, Cattle-Trespass Act (I [l] of 1871) which reads : 20. Power to make complaints-Any person whose cattle have been seized under this Act, or, having been so seized, have been detained in contraventi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . I do not think Section 14 Limitation Act, is applicable to such cases. 4. With regard to the second contention there is no doubt some amount of conflict of authorities in the different High Courts. In cases reported in Baijnath Sahay v. Emperor, A. I. R. (10) 1923 Pat. 292 : (24 Cr. L. J. 311); Ramdularey v. Monohar, A. I. R. (17) 1930 Nag. 149 : (31 Cr. L J. 278) and Boijoo v. Emperor, A. I. R. (26) 1939 Oudh 37 : (40 Cr. L. J. 141), it has been consistently held that specific sum representing the loss sustained shall be claimed in the petition of complaint in lieu or compensation. A contrary view has been indicatad in Bhujharat v. Emperor, A. I. R. (22) 1836 ALL. 925 : (37 Cr. L.J. 247) and Kolandai Chetty v. Perumal Kavundan, A. I. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... weir. 713), that the complainant may be allowed the costs of the proceeding though not the pleader's fee, if any, incurred by him. I would, therefore, hold that the petitioners will also succeed in their second contention. 5. The last contention is whether compensation awarded is excessive and if the High Court can interfere. High Court's power of interference is neither challenged nor is it challengeable. I will refer to the case of Emperor v. Madho, 126 I. C. 497 : (A.I. R. (17) 1930 Oudh 250 : 31 Cr. L. J. 1015). But it does not arise for me to settle the fair compensation as I have held that I shall set aside the order of the Magistrate and the proceeding so far as they were conducted before him. 6. Let this case go back ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
