A Magistrate must have jurisdiction to hear and dispose of a complaint under the Cattle-Trespass Act, 1871, and the complainant must specifically allege and prove the different heads of loss suffered in order to be awarded compensation.

Order. - The petitioners have been found having seized a few heads of cattle which belonged to the opposite party and impounded them. The seizure but not the detention has been adjudged illegal by the Honorary Magistrate. The Magistrate has awarded a compensation of Rs. 75 distributing the same as between the petitioners equally. Thus each petitioner has been awarded a liability to pay a sum of Rs. 15 to the complainant-opposite party. Several contentions have been raised by Mr. Dasgupta, the learned counsel for the petitioners. They are: (i) That the 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 Rs. 7/8, should have been awarded to the complainant; and lastly, (iii) that the compensation awarded is highly excessive.

2. For the first contention, reliance is placed upon S. 20, Cattle-Trespass Act (I [1] 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 contravention of this Act, may, at any time within ten days from the date of the seizure make a complaint to the Magistrate of the District or any Magistrate authorised to receive and try charges without reference to the Magistrate of the District."

Within the purview of the section, contention 1 must succeed. In the case of Raghu Singh v. Abdul Waheb, 23 Cal. 442, it has been held that an order of compensation awarded by a Magistrate other than one before whom a complaint of illegal seizure was made and who was not competent to entertain the same is not curable either by S. 529 or by S. 537, Criminal P. C. In this view, the order passed by the Honorary Magistrate is illegal and void. The appellate Courts decision against that cannot stand on a better footing. I, therefore, quash the order as also the proceeding taken before the Honorary Magistrate.

3. I am not aware nor have I been fully advised if the Sub-Divisional Magistrate before whom the complaint was filed is a Magistrate who is authorised to receive and try the charges referred to in S. 20 of the Act without reference to the Magistrate of the District. In case the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not entitled to entertain it, the complainant will be in tremendous difficulties. According to S. 20 he has to make his complaint within ten days from the date of the seizure. It is no longer open to him to make a complaint to a competent Magistrate within the meaning of S. 20 as the ten days period has expired. I do not think S. 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 of compensation. A contrary view has been indicated in Bhujharat v. Emperor, A. I. R. (22) 1935 all. 925 : (37 Cr. l. J. 247) and Kolandai Chetty v. Perumal Kavundan, a. I. R. (15) 1928 Mad. 369 : (29 Cr. l. J. 325). I do not find any difficulty in coming to my own decision. My decision is that in the petition of complaint, or, at any rate, in the evidence adduced for the complainant the different heads on which losses have been suffered must be specifically indicated. Suppose, by illegal seizure of cattle, the owner is deprived of any amount of milk that he should have otherwise obtained, he must be entitled to be compensated against such loss. But in order