The term "abandoned" in S. 418(1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, should be interpreted to mean "left unattended" rather than "ownerless."

Headnote:
{'KEYWORD': 'Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957', 'SUBJECT': 'Impounding of Stray Cattle', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['S. 418(1)', 'S. 491'], 'SUMMARY': 'The Court interpreted the term "abandoned" in S. 418(1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, to mean "left unattended" rather than "ownerless." This interpretation was based on the legislative intent to suppress the mischief of stray cattle and the provision in the proviso allowing owners to claim impounded animals within 7 days.'}
Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted of assaulting members of a raiding party that had rounded up stray cattle, including the appellants' cattle. The appellants claimed they were acting in the exercise of the right of private defense of their property.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the raiding party had the authority to impound the cattle under S. 418(1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, and that the appellants' actions did not constitute a valid exercise of the right of private defense.
Issues: 1. Whether the raiding party had the authority to seize and impound the cattle. 2. Whether the appellants had a right of private defense of their property.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the delegation of power to seize and impound stray cattle under S. 418(1) was valid and that the raiding party had the authority to do so. 2. The Court held that the appellants' actions did not constitute a valid exercise of the right of private defense because the raiding party was acting in good faith under color of their office and the appellants' cattle were not in imminent danger.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of the appellants.

Judgment

MUDHOLKAR, J.: This is an appeal by special leave from the summary dismissal of the appellants application for revision by the High Court of Punjab.

2. Eight persons were tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Delhi for offences under S. 148, S. 333/149 and S. 332/149, Indian Penal Code. He acquitted five of them but convicted the three appellants before us of all the three offences and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year in respect of the offence under S. 148, rigorous imprisonment for two years in respect of the offence under S. 332/149, rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under S. 333/149 and ordered that all the sentences will run concurrently. In appeal the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi set aside the convictions and sentences passed on the appellants for offences under S. 148 and S. 333/149 altered the conviction of each of the appellants from one under S. 332/ 149 to S. 332 simpliciter and awarded the same sentence in respect of it as had been awarded by the Assistant Sessions Judge in respect of the offence under S. 332/ 149.

3. Briefly stated the prosecution case was that on September 16, 1961, Mukhtiar Singh, Licensing Inspector of the Delhi Municipal Corporation organised a raiding party for catching stray cattle within the limits of the Corporation. The party consisted of Balbir Singh, Enforcement Inspector, H. K. Bhanot, Sanitary Inspector, Kishan Singh, Head Constable, three Foot constables and five cattle-catchers. The party reached the neighbourhood of Mori Gate Chowk at about 5 A.M. and rounded up about 25 or 30 stray cattle consisting of buffaloes and cows. While they were taking them to the Nigambodh Ghat cattle pound via Nicholson Road, the three appellants who were carrying lathis with them approached the party and threatened them that unless they released the cattle they would have to face serious consequences. The members of the party informed them who they were and the cattle-catchers showed them their identity cards. They explained to them that it was their duty to catch stray cattle, to impound them and that the appellants could get them released by taking the steps provided by the rules. This, however, only enraged the appellants who raised shouts asking their friends to come along with lathis in order to help them to get the cattle released by force. Upon hearing the shouts the other accused persons arrived at the spot with lathis, joined the appellants and all of them assaulted the members of the party, caused injuries to them and got the cattle released by force. As a result of the assault, P.W. 2 Kishan Singh sustained a grievous injury as well as some simple injuries, P-W, 14 Khem, P.W. 20 Podam Singh, P.W. 10 Iqbal Singh, P.W. 19 Nil Bahadur, P.W. 12 Ram Mehra sustained simple injuries. The incident was seen by a number of persons who happened to come to the spot at that time.

4. Eventually a report was lodged with the police, investigation was taken up and the appellants and the other accused were placed before a First Class Magistrate, who, after making a preliminary enquiry, committed them for trial by the Court of Session.

5. We are not concerned with the defence of the accused persons who were acquitted. The defence of the appellants was that they were bringing the cattle after grazing and watering them and that when they approached Mori Gate at about 4.30 a.m. a group of persons under the employment of the Corporation met them, belaboured them and eventually took them in a van to the police station. The appellants further say that they had acted in the exercise of the right of private defence of their property. Their defence has been rejected by the courts below.

6. Before us Mr. Kohli who appears for the appellants has raised two points. The first point is that the raiding party had no authority to seize and impound the cattle and the second point is that the appellants who were the owners of the cattle had a right of private defence of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document