JUDGMENT

Collister, J. - The 19 applicants have been convicted u/s 147 and 5 of them have been ordered u/s 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act, to pay compensation of Rs. 5 each to the complainant. The appellants appealed to the Additional Sessions Judge and the result was that some o f the sentences u/s 147, Penal Code, were reduced and the amount of compensation to be paid by applicants Nos. 1 to 5 was reduced from Rs. 20 each to Rs. 5 each. The only point which arises for determination in this revision is whether compensation u/s 22, Cattle Trepass Act, can legally be awarded when it is not claimed. This is the point which has been argued before me. In Baijnath Sahai v. Emperor 1923 Pat. 292, a learned Judge of the Patna High Court, held that, Court is not justified in awarding compensation under, Section 22, where such compensation has not been claimed in the petition of complaint. In Ramdularey v. Manohar 1930 Nag. 149, a learned Judge of the Judicial Commissioners Court at Nagpur has expressed a similar view. No reasons are given for this decision in either of the above two cases; it is merely laid down that if a complainant does not claim compensation, he cannot be compensated.

2. T