The illegal seizure of cattle by persons purporting to act under the provisions of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871, does not amount to the offence of theft under the Penal Code.

Headnote:
CATTLE TRESPASS ACT, 1871 - S. 10 - THEFT - SEIZURE OF CATTLE - ILLEGAL SEIZURE - WHETHER AMOUNTS TO THEFT - RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE OF PROPERTY.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants seized cattle grazing in a disputed field, alleging that they were damaging their crops and took them to the pound. The owners of the cattle, armed, went to rescue the cattle and asked the appellants to release them. After some altercation, the appellants opened the attack, resulting in injuries to both parties, including the death of one person.
Finding of the Court:

The illegal seizure of cattle by persons purporting to act in accordance with the provisions of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871, does not amount to the offence of theft under the Penal Code.
Issues: Whether the illegal seizure of cattle by persons purporting to act under the provisions of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871, amounts to the offence of theft under the Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Cattle Trespass Act, 1871, provides a comprehensive scheme for dealing with cases of illegal seizure or detention of cattle, and the remedy available to a person whose cattle have been so seized or detained is the one provided by S. 22 of the Act and no other. 2. The provisions of Chapter V of the Act deal comprehensively with the cases of such seizure of cattle which had been seized in the exercise of the power conferred by the Act or in furtherance of its objects though not in full accordance with the provisions of the Act. 3. The seizure of cattle, though illegal, cannot amount to the offence of theft as it does not involve the dishonest intention to take the property out of the possession of another person without their consent. 4. The act of taking the cattle to the pound, as directed by the Act, is not a dishonest act and does not cause any wrongful loss to the owner of the cattle. 5. The intention of the person seizing the cattle illegally is not to take the cattle dishonestly but to protect their crops and the interest of the owner of the cattle by having them in safe custody.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction of the appellants under S. 302, I. P. C. and S. 326, I. P. C. was set aside.

Judgment

RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. : This appeal, by special leave, raised the question whether a person who seizes cattle illegally, purporting to act under S. 10 of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871, hereinafter called the Act commits the offence of theft or robbery or not. The question arises in this way.

2. On the morning of November 28, 1957 a number of cattle belonging to several persons, including Shamnarain Singh, were observed by a number of persons, including Ramnandan Singh and Ram Ratan alias Ratan Ahir, grazing in a kurthi field about which there was a dispute between the authorities of the Basic School and Shamnarain Singh each of them claiming the field. Ramnandan Singh and others seized those cattle and proceeded to take them to the pound at village Tilauthu. These persons were armed with sharpedged weapons and lathis.

3. The report of the seizure of the cattle reached Shamnarain Singh and other people in the village. A number of people, variously armed, started from the village to rescue the cattle. They were joined by others on the way. This party, including Sukhari Mahto, Deocharan, Sheodutt, Hari Mahto and Ramdeo, caught up with the other party a short distance from the cattle pound and asked that party to release the cattle. Altercation took place between the parties and then they fought together. According to the prosecution case, members of the appellant s party attacked Shamnarain Singh and his companions. According to the appellants it was the other party which attacked them. As a result of the fight five persons got injured on the side of Shamnarain Singh. Of them, Ramdeo got one gaping punctured wound in the right thigh with a spear. He died as a result of the injury received, Sukhari Mahto received 16 injuries including 4 incised wounds. The other three injured persons received ordinary injuries. Deocharan had an abrasion, Sheodutt Singh got a lacerated wound, a swelling and an abrasion and Hari Mahto had a lacerated wound. On the side of the appellants, four persons got injured. Ramnandan Singh received 12 injuries, including 4 incised wounds and 3 punctured wounds. Ratan Ahir got three injuries including 2 punctured wounds. Sheoratan got 5 injuries including 2 punctured wounds. Raj Kumat Singh got 2 injuries including one punctured wound.

4. Reports were made at the police station on behalf of the two parties. Hari Mahto lodged a report on behalf of the complainant party against 20 persons. Ratan Ahir lodged a report against 26 persons. The police, as a result of investigation, sent up 28 persons for trial. The Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah, acquittd all of them. He found that (1) Shamnarain Singh was in lawful possession of the kurthi field in question on the date of occurrence and that the supposed claim thereto raised on behalf of the defence was not in good faith; (2) the cattle were seized in the presence of the Charwahas in spite of their protest; (3) even though the seizure of the cattle from the kurthi field by the accused party in these circumstances was an unlawful act, the conduct of the complinant-party, who were fully armed, in following them in order to release the cattle, was not justified as it showed a determination on their part to get their cattle released by use of force and that therefore there did not exist any right on the part of the owners-of the cattle to the extent of securing the release of their cattle from the hands of those who had seized them earlier by use of force; (4) there was strong probability in favour of the view that it was the prosecution-party which created the crisis and took the aggression to initiate the assault and that the prosecution narration as to the manner in which the assault commenced at the scene of occurrence where the assault took place, did not commend itself to him and that part of the prosecution story appeared to suffer from material suppression, and that, in these circumstances, the accuse party had the reasonable apprehension of suffering griev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1964 Supreme(SC) 224

The illegal seizure of cattle by persons purporting to act under the provisions of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871, does not amount to the offence of theft under the Penal Code.

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis