LexRAM RATAN ALIAS RATAN AHIR AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
RAM RATAN alias RATAN AIDR AND OTHERS
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER
September 22, 1964
293
(A. K. SARKAll, K. N. WANCHOO AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL JI.)
Cattle Trespass Act, (1 of 1871) s. !{}-Cattle
damaging crop-
Seiture under statute-Seizure not justified-Whether
amounts to theft
-Owner whether can rescue cattle invoking right of private defence of
property-Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), ss. 97. 378.
The appellanlS seized cattle from a field which they claimed to be
in their possession. They were taking them to the cattle-pound, purport-
ing to act under s. 10 of· the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871. The com-
plainants to whom the cattle belonged tried to rescue them and in the
fight that ensued several persons on both sides were
injured and one
member of the complainant-party died.
The Sessions Judge found that
the cattle had been seized illegally as the field from which they had been
taken belonged to the complainants. However he acquitted the appellants
on the ground that they had the right of private defence of person against
the complainants who wanted to rescue their cattle by force, having no
right of private defence of property. The High Court, in appeal against
the acquittal held that the complainants had a right of private defence of
property and could rescue the cattle by force. On this finding it convict-
ed the appellants who came to the Supreme Court by special leave.
The main question for consideration was whether a person who
seizes cattle illegally, purporting to act under s. 10 of the Cattle Trespass
Act, 1871, commits offence of theft or robbery or not, for on that would
depend which side had the right at private defence.
HELD : (i) When a· person seizes cattle on the ground that they
were trespassing on his land and causing damage to his crop or produce
and gives out that he was taking them to the pound, he commits no
otfenee of theft however mistaken he may be about his light to that land
or crop.
[305BJ.
Queen v. Preonath Banerjee,· 5 W.R. 68 (Criminal), Wazuddin
v.
Rahimuddin, (1917) 18 Cr. L.J. 849, Abdul Khaliq v. Emperor, A.I.R.
1941 Lah. 221, Paryag Rai v. Arju Mian, I.L.R. 22 Cal. 139 and Queen
Empress v. Sri Churan Chungo, I.L.R. 22 Cal. 1017, held inapplicable.
Empress v. Ramjiawan, (1881) 1 All. W.N. 158 and Dayal v. Em-
peror, A.I.R. 1943 Oudh 280, approved.
'
(ii) Mere seizure of cattle is not theft. For theft dishonest move-
ment of cattle ,stolen is also necessary. The
person who seizes cattle
found to be damaging his crops and takes them to the pound does so in
accordance with the specific direction given in s. 10 of the. Act His act
being in accordance with the provisions of the Act cannot be considered,
prima facie, to be dishonest. Nor can an intention to cause wrongful
loss to the owner of the cattle or wrongful gain to himself be attributed
H
to him unless bis avowed intention ,ofltaking the catile to the pound is
found to be a cover for some other intention
which may be inferred
from circum5tances.
There is, in fact, no wrongful
gain or wrongful
loss to either party by the impounding of cattle. [303B-E; 304E·H).
K. N. Mehra v. State of Rajasthan [1957] S.C.R. 623,
relied on.
USupf.64-6
294
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1965] I S.C.R.
(iii) The remedy of the owner of cattle seized under s. JO of the
A
Act is to take action under s. 20 of the Ac!.
He has no right to use
force to rescue Lhe cattle so seized.
The complainants who \vent armed
with sharp-edged weapans and lathis to rescue the cattle had no right of
defence of their property against the appellants. [3058-C].
(iv) In the circumstances the appellant• who could reasonably ap·
prehcnd that the complainants would cause lhem gre\'ious hurt for
the
purpose of rescuing their cattle, had the right of private
defence
and
II
they committed no offence in cau>ing injuries ro the other party and the
death of one of its members. [306F-GJ.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION :
Criminal
Appeal
No. 29 of 1963.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
C
December 13, 1962, of the Patna High Court in Government
Appeal No. 24 of 1960.
Nuruddin Ahmed, B. P. Singh and U. P. Singh,
for
the
appellants.
B. P. J ha, for respondent No. I.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ragbubar Dayal J.
This appeal, by special leave, raises the
question whether a person who seizes cattle illegally, purporting
to act undExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.