1. The petitioner has been convicted under S. 24, Cattle Trespass Act, and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15.
2. It has been argued before me that before there can be a conviction under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act, it must be proved that the cattle was liable to be seized and that therefore the requirements of S. 10 must be complied with. In this case it is argued that there is no finding that any damage was done to the complainant's paddy. In my opinion, this argument is well founded.
3. The lower appellate Court, no doubt, relies upon one of the witnesses, who deposed that he saw the cattle grazing on the complainant's bhoga paddy. This evidence was quite insufficient to show that damage was caused. Case law has laid down that there must be a finding that damage was caused. There is not that finding in this case, and I would accordingly allow this application, set aside the conviction and sentences passed upon the petitioner, and direct that the fine, if paid, be refunded.
V.S/R.K
4. Application allowed.