NAZAKAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NAZAKAT and his son Riasat applicants along with others were convicted under Section 5 of the U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment each and a fine of Rs. 500/- each. On appeal the other accused were acquitted but the Sessions Judge, Mora-dabad upheld the conviction of NAZAKAT and Riasat. The sentence imposed on the applicants, however, was modified to the extent that NAZAKAT was required to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and Riasat was fined Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine NAZAKAT was to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and Riasat was to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Hence this revision. I have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned orders. According to the prosecution case Station Officer P. S. Thakurdwara on receiving information raided the house of NAZAKAT in village Sharifnagar on 4th June 1970, at about 7 A. M. He was accompanied by public witnesses. He found NAZAKAT cutting beef and weighing it in a balance. Riasat his son was also sitting beside him and cutting beef in small pieces and placing the same in the balance. On seeing the Police party the accused tried to run away. NAZAKAT escaped. Riasat, and others with whom we are not now concerned, were arrested on the spot. 10 kg. beef was recovered from the place where weighment was being done. A sum of Rs. 750/- was recovered from Riasat and different quantities of beef purchased by the other accused was also recovered. On these allegations the accused applicants have been prosecuted and convicted. So far as the facts of the case are concerned, both the courts below have held the prosecution case fully established against the applicants. The sale and the recovery of beef has been proved from the evidence on the record. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by the court below. The sole point argued in this revision is whether the meat, which is said to have been sold and recovered, has been proved to be beef under the provisions of U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. Beef means "flesh of cow and of such bull or bullock, whose slaughter is prohibited under this Act, but does not include such flesh contained in sealed containers and imported as such into Uttar Pradesh." Section 3 as it stands after the amendment by U. P. Act 33 of 1958 prohibits the slaughter of : (a) 'cow' (b) bull or bullock unless a certificate in writing is obtained in respect thereof from the competent authority of the area certifying that it is fit for slaughter. It is clear from a perusal of Section 3 that there is an absolute prohibition for the slaughter of a cow, except in cases covered by Section 4 of the Prevention of cow Slaughter Act. Section 4 refers to a cow which is suffering from any contagious, infectious disease notified as such by the State Government, or which is subjected to experimentation in the interest of medical and public health research. In the instant case Section 4 has no application and therefore, the legal position appears to be clear that the slaughter of a cow is prohibited under Section 3 of the Act. Under Section 2(b) as it stands after the Amendment of 1958, referred to above, cow includes a heifer or a calf. Bull or bullock which existed in this definition under Section 2(2) previously has been delected. Therefore, it is quite clear that the slaughter of a cow, heifer or a calf is prohibited under the Act, subject to the conditions already mentioned above, which do not apply in the instant case. The statement of the Veterinary surgeon and his report is to the effect that the flesh of the sample of meat sent to him was of yellow colour, and white hair identical to that of a cow or its progeny were sticking to portions of the flesh. It was morbid in appearance. The hide accompanying the flesh was of white colour with both ears attached and tail with black switch of hairs. There were four teeth attached to the hide. From all these observations the Veterinary surgeon was of the opinion that the meat examined by him was that of a slaughtered cow or of its progeny of young age. The hide is of a young slaughtered cow and the time of slaughter is about seven hours prior to his examination. From the above details there can be no doubt that the meat in question was covered by the definition of beef, as defined m section 2 (a) and (b) of the Act. Learned counsel for the applicants has cited a single Judge decision of this Court by Justice D. S. Mathur (as he then was) in Bafati v. State, 1954 (1) Cr. L. J. 327 and on this basis he has ufged that the prosecution has failed to disfulge its burden in proving that the tiesh recovered in the incident in question was prohibited flesh namely beef. He has a so urged that the Veterinary Surgeon having failed to give the exact age of the animal, the prosecution case has not been established. I have very carefully perused the decision mentioned apoye in my opinion, that decision is distinguishable. In that case the opinion of the Assistant Veterinary Surgeon was that the flesh recovered was of a young cow or bullock. Justice Mathur was of the opinion that the cow or bullock cannot ordinarily mean a calf. The calf has its own significance. Consequently he was of the view that in the absence or any clarification by the Assistant Veterinary Surgeon it should be held that the flesh was either of a heifer or a young bullock. This means the Hon'ble Judge was in doubt whether the flesh was that of a heifer or of a young bullock. Since a bullock had been excluded from the definition of a cow after the U. P. Amendment Act 1968, this Court was of the opinion that when two views were possible, a view favourable to the accused has to be adopted. In the case at hand the report of the Veterinary Surgeon does not create any doubt of the nature expressed in the case cited above. The Veterinary Surgeon is clearly of the opinion that the flesh belongs to a slaughtered cow or its progeny of young age. Such a flesh would clearly come within the definition of 'beef' as laid down under the Act. Merely because the Veterinary Surgeon could not give the age of the cow of the progeny of the cow, is no ground for holding that the flesh did not belong either to the cow or the progeny of a cow, viz. a heifer or a calf. The meat of all those three categories viz., the cow, the heifer and a calf is included within the definition of 'Beef, as defined in Section 2(a) of the Act. and as such its slaughter is prohibited under the Act. For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that the applicants have been rightly convicted and sentenced. There is no merit in this revision, which is hereby dismissed. The interim order passed by this Court on 24th May 1974 is hereby vacated. The fine shall be paid within three months from today, failing which the applicants shall suffer the varying terms of imprisonment in default, as ordered by the Sessions Judge Moradabad on 30th November 1973. The record of the case shall be despatched to the court below within three weeks from today.