Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Babu and ors. Vs. Emperor

Babu and ors. vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Nov 30, 1925
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/481715

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Cattle Trespass Act (I of 1871), Section 2k - Cattle pound--Illegal seizure of cattle--Rescue--Offence. -

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Babu and ors.

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
92Ind.Cas.697

Excerpt

cattle trespass act (i of 1871), section 2k - cattle pound--illegal seizure of cattle--rescue--offence. - sulaiman, j.1. this is a reference by the sessions judge of muttra recommending that the conviction of the accused under section 24 of the cattle trespass act (i 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 any 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 under section 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.

Full Judgment

Sulaiman, J.

1. This is a Reference by the Sessions Judge of Muttra recommending that the conviction of the accused under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act (I 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 any 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 under Section 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.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial