Delegated power to seize stray cattle was upheld, and no private defence lay against a lawful municipal impounding action.

Municipal officers were held to have valid delegated authority to seize and impound stray cattle under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, because the Commissioner could authorise officers by designation and direct control did not require personal presence at the scene. The term "abandoned" in the seizure provision was read in context to mean cattle left unattended, not necessarily ownerless, so cattle rounded up while roaming could lawfully be impounded. Because the seizure was authorised by statute, no right of private defence of property arose; in any event, such resistance was barred where public servants act in good faith under colour of office. The conviction was therefore upheld and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the municipal employees were duly empowered to seize and impound stray cattle under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957; (ii) whether the appellants could claim a right of private defence of property against the seizure.

Issue (i): Whether the municipal employees were duly empowered to seize and impound stray cattle under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.

Analysis: Section 418(1) empowered the Commissioner or an officer authorised by him to seize and impound stray cattle. The delegation order identified the class of officers by designation and limited the power to stray cattle, which was sufficient. Section 491 permitted delegation to municipal officers or employees, and the Commissioner's supervisory control did not require his physical presence at the spot. The word "abandoned" in section 418(1) was construed in context to mean cattle left unattended, not ownerless, so cattle rounded up while roaming could validly be impounded.

Conclusion: The seizure and impounding were authorised by law.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants could claim a right of private defence of property against the seizure.

Analysis: Once the seizure was held lawful, no right of private defence arose. In any event, section 99 of the Indian Penal Code excludes private defence against acts done by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of office, and the act in question was fully justified by the statute.

Conclusion: The appellants had no right of private defence.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was upheld and the appeal failed in its entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: The expression "abandoned" in the seizure provision must be construed according to the statutory context to mean cattle left unattended, and a lawful act done by municipal officers under delegated statutory power cannot be resisted on the plea of private defence.

---