CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Queen Empress vs Lakshmanna and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 7 December 1900 · Citation: (1901) ILR (Mad) 318

HON’BLE JUDGES
Davies, J · Benson, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Cattle Trespass Act, 1871 — Section 24
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 147 words
1.

The conviction u/s 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act can only be supported if the cattle were "liable to be seized under this Act." If the cattle were not "liable to be seized'' their rescue was no offence, and the fact that the rescuers had a special remedy u/s 20 does not affect the matter.

2.

The cattle were not liable to be seized in this case by the officers of the Public Works Department unless they were trespassing on public property in charge of the officers of the Public Works Department (Vide section II of the Act). Neither of the Magistrates has decided that the land on which the cattle were seized was public property and in charge of the Public Works Department. The conviction must be set aside and the case remanded for disposal by the Second-class Sheristadar Magistrate of Nuzvid according to law.