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.

Meghai Vs. Sheobhik and ors.

Meghai vs Sheobhik and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Dec 31, 1969
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/495763

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 High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 560 - Frivolous and vexatious complaint--Act No. IX of 1871 (Cattle Trespass Act), Section 20--Complaint of wrongful seizure of cattle--'Offence.' -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Meghai

Respondent

Sheobhik and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred
and Nedaram Thakur v. Joonab I.L.R.
Reported In
(1896)ILR18All353

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, section 560 - frivolous and vexatious complaint--act no. ix of 1871 (cattle trespass act), section 20--complaint of wrongful seizure of cattle--'offence.' - banerji, j.1. this is a reference by the district magistrate of allahabad under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure. a complaint was brought against three persons by one meghai of the wrongful seizure of cattle under section 20 of act no. i of 1871. the complaint was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious, arid the magistrate who tried the case awarded compensation to each of the accused persons from the complainant under section 560 of the code of criminal procedure. that section authorises a magistrate to award compensation to a person accused of an offence. a wrongful seizure of cattle is not made punishable under any law, and is not therefore an offence within the meaning of the code of criminal procedure. that being so, a complaint of the illegal seizure of cattle was not a complaint of an offence, and section 560 was not applicable. the award of compensation by the deputy magistrate was consequently illegal. this view is supported by the rulings of the madras high court in pitchi v. ankappa i.l.r. 9 mad. 102, kottalanada v. muthayya i.l.r. 9 mad. 374 and of the calcutta high court in kala chand v. gudadhur biswas i.l.r. 13 cal. 304 and nedaram thakur v. joonab i.l.r. 23 cal. 248.2. i set aside the order of the magistrate, and direct the compensation awarded to be refunded.

Full Judgment

Banerji, J.

1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Allahabad under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A complaint was brought against three persons by one Meghai of the wrongful seizure of cattle under Section 20 of Act No. I of 1871. The complaint was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious, arid the Magistrate who tried the case awarded compensation to each of the accused persons from the complainant under Section 560 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That section authorises a Magistrate to award compensation to a person accused of an offence. A wrongful seizure of cattle is not made punishable under any law, and is not therefore an offence within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That being so, a complaint of the illegal seizure of cattle was not a complaint of an offence, and Section 560 was not applicable. The award of compensation by the Deputy Magistrate was consequently illegal. This view is supported by the rulings of the Madras High Court in Pitchi v. Ankappa I.L.R. 9 Mad. 102, Kottalanada v. Muthayya I.L.R. 9 Mad. 374 and of the Calcutta High Court in Kala Chand v. Gudadhur Biswas I.L.R. 13 Cal. 304 and Nedaram Thakur v. Joonab I.L.R. 23 Cal. 248.

2. I set aside the order of the Magistrate, and direct the compensation awarded to be refunded.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial