Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SULAIMAN, J.
Babu & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Emperor - Respondent
Decided On : 30-11-1925
JUDGMENT
Sulaiman, J. - This is a Reference by the Sessions Judge of Muttra recommending that the conviction of the accused u/s 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act (1 of 1871) should be set aside. A report was made by the pound-keeper that the accused had removed a mare from the cattle pound 10 minutes after it had been put into it. The pound-keeper did not make entry in his register as regards this mare although before he put it into the pound he ought to have made such an entry. The accused was tried summarily and the evidence does not disclose on whose land it had trespassed and who had brought the mare to the pound. On the other hand the accused's statement was that the two accused themselves had brought this mare along with a horse because otherwise they would not have found it possible to bring the horse to the pound. The learned Magistrate in a summary trial has convicted the accused on a finding that they removed the mare out of the cattle pound without a finding that it had been properly seized. Before a conviction u/s 24 can be sustained it is necessary to prove that the cattle which has been rescued was liable to be seized under this Act. The circumstances of the case are very curious and in the absence of any statement by the pound-keeper or any reference to it in the judgment that this mare had been rightly seized under the Act, the conviction cannot be upheld. If the accused themselves had brought their own mare to the cattle pound and after the horse had gone inside they took the mare out no offence was committed. I accordingly accept the Reference and setting aside the convictions and sentences passed on the accused acquit them of the charge and direct that the fines, if paid, be refunded.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
