EMPEROR Vs. AKBAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are four connected references made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Basti, recommending that the conviction and sentence passed upon each of the four applicants before him be set aside. It appears that on 9 December 1943 the Provincial Government, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Sub-rule 2(a) of Rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules, made an Order, called the United Provinces Cattle, Sheep and Goats (Slaughter) Control Order, 1943. It was published in the U.P. Gazette Extraordinary on the same date. This Order was subsequently amended on 12 January 1944 by means of the Order No. V- 3421/C.S., published in the U.P. Gazette Extra ordinary of that date, and again on 15 March 1944 by means of the Order No. 116/XII-D. 72/44, published in the U.P. Gazette dated 18 March 1944. The two amendments, however, are not material for the purposes of the present case. Paragraph 3 of the said Control Order provides inter alia that no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered or offer for slaughter any goat below two years of age. Paragraph 4 of the Order provided that if any person contravenes any of the provisions of this Order, he shall be liable to punishment with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. The applicants in the four references, viz., Akbar, Anwar, Sabit Ali and Kotar, are butchers by profession.

(2.) It appears that on 6 March 1944 each of the applicants slaughtered some goats below two years of age in the slaughter house maintained by the Notified Area, Basti. According to the bye laws of the Notified Area, the Veterinary Assistant had to pass the goats as fit for slaughter before they could be slaughtered. The applicants were tried summarily in four separate trials by a learned Magistrate of the first class. Each accused admitted that the goats were slaughtered and that they were below two years of age. It was, however, contended in each case that the goats were slaughtered with the permission of the Veterinary Assistant, Basti, and that the accused was ignorant of the Order passed by the Provincial Government. The learned Magistrate, who decided these cases on 26 April 1944 held that the goats slaughtered by the accused were below two years of age. He also found that the applicants were all unaware of the Order passed by the Provincial Government. He went on to say that even the Veterinary Assistant appeared to be unaware of the Order and so he had passed the goats in question for slaughter. In view of these findings he took a lenient view and sentenced the accused in each case to a fine of Rs. 25 and in default three months rigorous imprisonment. The four applicants thereupon moved the learned Sessions Judge in revision and it was contended on their behalf that the case could not be tried summarily inasmuch as the offence was punishable with imprisonment which may extend to a period of three years. The learned Sessions Judge, however, repelled this contention. He has pointed out that Rule 130(4) of the Defence of India Rules makes provisions for the summary trial of offences relating to the contra, vention of any of the provisions of the Defence of India Rules, or of any Order made thereunder as the Central Government may by order specify in this behalf, provided certain conditions are satisfied. He has further pointed out that by Notification No. 5/D.O.(48)43-1, dated 4 March 1944, the Central Government has specified that contravention of Orders made under Rule 81(2) of the Defence of India Rules shall be triable summarily. He has also noted the fact that the prosecution in these cases made the necessary application and that the Magistrate concerned was invested with summary powers. In view of these facts, the learned Sessions Judge very rightly repelled this contention.

(3.) The next point urged before the learned Sessions Judge was that, having regard to the provisions of Rule 119 of the Defence of India Rules and the finding of the learned Magistrate that the accused in each case was unaware of the Control Order in question, he could not be held guilty of the offence with which he was charged. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing arguments of learned Counsel on both sides came to the conclusion that the provisions of Rule 119 were not complied with. He further held that there was no proof that the Provincial Government had directed the publication of the Control Order in the Gazette for the purpose of Rule 119. He was accordingly of the opinion that no liability attached to any of the applicants who, as held by the learned Magistrate, were actually unaware of the Order. Ho has accordingly made these references and in support of his opinion he has referred to the case in Shakoor Hasan V/s. Emperor ( 44) 31 A.I.R. 1944 Nag. 40.