LAWS(ALL)-1972-10-21

IDRISUL QADAR UFAQ Vs. STATE

Decided On October 06, 1972
IDRISUL QADAR UFAQ Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IDRISUL Qadar was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Gunnaur district Budaun on 17. 7. 1970 for an offence under Section 34 of the Police Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/ -. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He filed a revision before the Second Temporary Sessions Judge, Budaun, which was dismissed on 14. 10. 1970. He has now come to this Court in revision.

(2.) THE case for the prosecution is that on 28. 2. 1969 Idrisul Qadar applicant dumped chopped portions of the carcass of Bara Janwar and its entrails including the remnants of stomach, skin and horns on the public road in front of the house of Ram Singh. It was objected to by Ram Singh, but the applicant did not listen to him when he said that it would hurt the feelings of the Hindu community. Ram Singh reported the matter at the police station Kotwali complaining that the act of the accused above mentioned had caused obstructions, inconvenience and annoyance. As the festivals of Holi and Bakrid were approaching an order under Section 144, Cr. P. C. had been promulgated in the city S. I. Bharat Singh immediately came to the spot to verify the facts mentioned by Ram Singh. On reaching the spot in question the Sub inspector found the entrails of the carcass lying as reported and he arrested the accused. After completion of investigation a charge sheet was submitted against the accused. Idrisul Qadar denied his guilt and alleged that he has been falsely implicated.

(3.) THE prosecution in support of its case examined S. I. Bharat Singh and prosecution witnesses Ram Singh and Chunnilal. On a consideration of the evidence on the record the Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution case had been fully established. He therefore, convicted the accused as above. The Sessions Judge in revision did not find any error or illegality in the findings recorded by the trial court. He, therefore, confirmed the conviction and the sentence imposed upon the applicant.