STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BHARWAD VAJA DHARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of 7 appeals arises out of similar orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Morvi in some cases instituted against different accused persons who are respondents in each of these appeals under sec. 118 of the Bombay Police Act. Under that section whoever through neglect or otherwise fails to keep in confinement or under restraint between one hour after sunset and sunrise any cattle which are his property or in his charge shall on conviction be punished in a particular manner laid down in that section. In each of these cases the allegation as shown in the charge-sheet was that the accused concerned had failed to keep his cows in confinement at night time and had left them unattended and the cows had to be sent to the cattle pound by the police and in each case the accused was alleged to have committed the offence punishable under sec. 118 of the Bombay Police Act. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that under sec. 2(1) of the Bombay Police Act the definition of cattle is set out and as cow is Dot included in that definition of cattle in sec. 2(1) provisions of sec. 118 of the Act are not attracted and the charge under sec. 118 cannot be sustained.

(2.) When one turns to the definition section in sec. 2(1) it provides:- cattle includes elephants camels horses asses mules sheep goats and swine. It has to be borne in mind that this is an inclusive definition and not an exhaustive definition. The words used by the Legislature are not means or means and includes but only includes. It is a well-settled principle of statutory interpretation that when there is an inclusive definition the ordinary meaning of the word is enlarged but the ordinary meaning is not restricted by such inclusive definition. As pointed out in Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes 12 Ed. page 270: Sometimes however the word include is used in order to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute and when it is so used these words or phrases must be construed as comprehending not only such things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. In support of this proposition is the decision of the House of Lords in Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps. (1899) A. C. 99. In other words according to Maxwell the word in respect of which includes is used bears both its extended statutory meaning and its ordinary popular and natural sense whenever that would be properly applicable. (See Robinson v. Barton-Eccles Local Board. (1883) 8 App. Cas. 798). In view of this position regarding statutory interpretation the ordinary and popular meaning of the word cattle has to be retained and in addition to that ordinary and popular meaning the statutory meaning set out in sec. 2(1) has to be attributed to the word cattle.

(3.) According to the dictionary meaning cattle means livestock and also means domesticated bobine animals collectively cows bulls steers or oxen the term is not applied to calves and heifers. In view of this meaning of the word cattle it is obvious that it was not necessary for the Legislature to refer specifically to cows when defining the word cattle by this inclusive definition. In the popular meaning of the word cattle cows are included and hence the learned Magistrate with respect to him was in error when he came to the conclusion that the word cattle as defined in sec. 2(1) does not refer to cows. In view of the well-known principles of statutory interpretation referred to above the popular meaning of the word cattle is not excluded by the inclusive definition of sec. 2(1). The word continues to bear its ordinary popular meaning over and above its extended statutory meaning. Under these circumstances the learned Magistrate was in error when he acquitted each of the accused in this group of cases for the offence punishable under sec. 118 of the Bombay Police Act.