9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (11) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riction' connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond what is required in the interests of the public. The word 'reasonable' implies intelligent care and deliberation, that is, the choice of a course which reason dictates. Legislation which arbitrarily or excessively invades the right cannot be said to contain the quality of reasonableness and unless it strikes a proper balance between the freedom guaranteed in Art. 19(1)(g) and the social control permitted by clause (6) of Art. 19, it must be held to be wanting in that quality. As to r. 3 the grievances of the petitioners are these. Under the rule the prescribed authority for the purpose of s. 3 of the Act consists of the Veterinary Officer and the Chairman or Chief Officer of a District Board, Municipality etc. Unless both of them concur, no certificate for slaughter can be granted. It is pointed out that the Chairman or Chief Officer would be a layman not in a position to judge the age or usefulness of cattle. The result would be that the animal in respect of which a certificate is required may have to be shown to the Veterina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for clearness sake, to set forth not the whole provisions of the Act, for that would be too lengthy, but those which form most directly the subject matter on which the controversy turns. Section 3 of the Act reads (omitting portions not relevant for our purpose)- S. 3(1) Except as hereinafter provided, no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter- (a).......................................... (b) a bull or bullock, unless he has obtained in respect thereof a certificate in writing, from the competent authority of the area in which the bull or bullock is to be slaughtered, certifying that it is fit for slaughter... (2) No bull or bullock, in respect of which a certificate has been issued under sub-section (1)(b) shall be' slaughtered at any place other than the place indicated in the certificate or within twenty days of the date of issue of the certificate. (3) A certificate under sub-section (1)(b) shall be issued by the competent authority, only after it has, for reasons to be recorded in writing, certified that(a) the bull or bullock is over the age of twenty years; and (b) in the case of a bull, it has bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t at an earlier age, it cannot be slaughtered unless it is over twenty years in age. Before a certificate can be given, the animal must fulfil two conditions as to (1) age and (2) permanent unfitness. We consider this to be a demonstrably unreasonable restriction. In Md. Hanif Quareshi's case (1) [1939] S.C R. 629. this Court had said that a total ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks after they had ceased to be capable of breeding or working as draught animals was not in the interests of the general public. Yet this is exactly what the impugned provision does by imposing a double restriction. It lays down that even if the animal is permanently unserviceable, no certificate can be given unless it is more than 20 years in age. The restriction will in effect put an end to the trade of the petitioners. Thirdly, the impugned provision provides (1) that the animal shall not be slaughtered within 20 days of the date of the issue of the certificate and (2) that any person aggrieved by the order of the competent authority may appeal to the State Government within 20 days. It is to be noted that the right of appeal is not confined to a refusal to grant a certificate as in the Bi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... makes its meat unwholesome for human consumption. (3) The Competent Authority shall, before issuing or refusing to issue a certificate under this section, record its order in writing. Any person aggrieved by the order of the Competent Authority under this section, may, within ten days of the date of the order, prefer an appeal against such order to the Collector of the district or such other officer as may, by notification, be authorised in this behalf by the State Government, and the Collector or such other officer may pass such orders thereon as he thinks fit. (4) Subject to the orders passed in appeal, if any, under sub-section (3), the order of the Competent Authority shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court. Section 5 places a restriction as to the place and time for slaughter and the objection taken before us relates to the time rather than to the place of slaughter. It says in effect that no cattle in respect of which a certificate has been issued under s. 4 shall be slaughtered within ten days of the date of issue of the certificate and where an appeal is preferred against the grant of such certificate, till the time such appeal is disposed of. The p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or work or breeding is an excessive or unreasonable restriction as we have pointed out with regard to a similar provision in the Uttar Pradesh Act. The second part of the clause would not be open to any objection, if it stood by itself. If, however, it has to be combined with the agelimit mentioned in the first part of the clause, it will again be open to the same objection; if the animal is to be over 20 years of age and also permanently incapacitated from work or breeding etc.,then the agelimit is really meaningless. Then, the expression 'due to age' in the second part of the clause also loses its meaning. It seems to us that cl. (a) of sub- s. (2) of s. 4 of the Act as drafted is bad because it imposes a disproportionate restriction on the slaughter of bulls, bullocks and buffaloes it is a restriction excessive in nature and not in the interests of the general public. The test laid down is not merely permanent incapacity or unfitness for work or breeding but the test is something more than that, a combination of age and unfitness' Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed before us an observation contained in a reply made by the Deputy Minister in the course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rely seeks to effectuate the total ban on the slaughter of cows and calves (both of cows and she-buffaloes). Section 8 is also ancillary in character and if the other provisions are valid no objection can be taken to the provisions of s. 8. Sections 10 and 11 impose penalties and their validity cannot be seriously disputed. However, we must say a few words about s. 12 of the Act which has also been challenged before us. Section 12 is in these terms: S. 12. In any trial for an offence punishable under section 11 for contravention of the provision of sections 5, 6 or 7 of this Act the burden of proving that the slaughter, transport or sale of agricultural cattle was not in contravention of the provisions of this Act shall be on the accused. The argument is that s. 12 infringes the fundamental right of the petitioners inasmuch as it puts the burden of proof on an accused person not only for his own knowledge or intention but for the knowledge or intention of other persons. We do not think that this contention is correct. The accused person, so far as ss. 5 and 7 are concerned, must be the person who has slaughtered the animal or who has purchased, sold or otherwise disposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
