EMPEROR Vs. NASIR WAZIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in this case has been convicted by a Bench of Honorary Presidency Magistrates of ill-treating his horse on the 21st of May last, under Section 3, Clause (a) of Act XI of 1890. His plea of guilty is recorded in these terms: "I admit having turned my horse out to starve. It was on the road for twenty-five days." The question in this application is whether the conviction under Section 3(a) is right.

(2.) In substance what the accused did was that he abandoned his horse. After he turned his horse out he apparently exercised no control over the animal and the horse was practically left uncared for in the public streets. The section pro. vides among other things that " if any person in any street or in any other place, whether open or closed, to which the public have access, or within sight of any person in any street or in any such other place cruelly and unnecessarily beats, overdrives, overloads or otherwise ill-treats any animal," he shall be liable to punishment by way of fine or imprisonment. All the acts of cruelty mentioned in this clause, viz., beating, over-driving and over-loading suggest that the person concerned exercises an immediate control over the animal at the time. In the present case the accused is said to have ill-treated the horse by turning it out to starve.

(3.) It was suggested, on behalf of the accused in the course of the argument, that it would not be ill-treating the animal within the meaning of Section 3(a) to let it starve. I am, however, not prepared to accept this argument. It may be that where the person is in a position to exercise control over the animal and to prevent starvation, he may effectively ill- treat an animal by starving it.