EMPEROR Vs. GGMUNSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code who invites us to set aside the conviction of the accused passed by the Stipendiary Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad, under Section 3(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, XI of 1890.

(2.) The accused was convicted under Section 3(a) of having overloaded a cart drawn by a single bullock, and the ground on which the learned Magistrate convicted was that inasmuch as the regulations framed by the Commissioner of Revenue, N.D., under the Public Conveyances Act, VII of 1920, prescribe the weight of twenty-seven funds as the maximum weight to be drawn by a single bullock, and as the weight in this case was thirty-five funds, it must be assumed that the bullock was overloaded.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge referred the matter to us because he considered that the weight which the Commissioner of Revenue has fixed for the purposes of the Public Conveyances Act is wholly irrelevant for the purpose of deciding whether an offence has been committed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, I entirely agree with the learned Sessions Judge. Mr. Divatia who appears for the Secretary of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals tells us that the conviction in this case is in accordance with the practice which prevails in the Magistrates Courts in this Presidency, and if that is so, I think that the practice is wrong.