In Re: Ponnusami and Another

The District Magistrate has overlooked the change that has been made in the definition of an ""offence"" since the ruling of the High Court to

which he refers was made. By Section 4(o) of the Criminal Procedure Code as now revised the word ""offence"" includes an act in respect of which

a complaint may be made u/s 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act. It follows that a person against whom an order u/s 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act is

made is a ""person convicted on a trial."" In the present case the accused were ""convicted on a trial"" by a Magistrate of the third class.

An appeal against that conviction therefore lay u/s 407, Criminal Procedure Code, and there is no ground for our interference.

We may add that the Deputy Magistrate was wrong in supposing that he was acting, or had any jurisdiction, u/s 250, Criminal Procedure Code.

That section applies to a case in which compensation is awarded to an accused person, because a frivolous complaint has been made against him.

Here compensation was awarded not to the accused but to the complainant, and it was awarded u/s 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act, not u/s 250,

Criminal Procedure code.

We may also point out to the District Magistrate that in a reference of this kind the essential facts should be briefly stated in the Letter of

reference instead of being left to be gathered by the High Court from a perusal of the record.