Input:
Appeals Nos. 333 334 of 1962.
Appeals by special leave from the preliminary order dated June 3, 1961 and Order dated September 29, '1961 of the Second Labour Court, Bombay in Applications (I.D.A.) Nos.
447 to 462 of 1958.
R.J. Kolah, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
section V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor General of India, K. T. Sule, M. C. Bhandare, M. Rajagopalas and K. B. Chaudhuri, for the respondents.
May 9.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR.J.
These 16 appeals arise out of petitions filed by the 16 respondents who arc the employees of the appellant, the Bombay Gas Co. Ltd., under section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (No. 14 of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act).
These respondents are the District Siphon Pumpers and Heat Appliances Repairers Inspectors, and in their applications made before the Second Labour Court, Bombay, they alleged that as a result of the award made by the Industrial Tribunal in reference (I. T.) No. 54 of 1949 published in the Bombay Government Gazette on May 11, 1950, they were entitled to a certain benefit 712 and they moved the Labour Court to compute that benefit in terms of money and to direct the appellant to pay the same to them.
The direction in the earlier award on which this claim was based was made in these terms "The demand in respect of the workers of the Mains, Services and District Fittings Departments and Lamp Repairers and others who were till 1948 required to work on Sundays and in respect of whom a weekly day off was enforced thereafter without any corresponding increase in wages is granted.
In respect of the rest, the demand is rejected.
This demand was resisted by the appellant on several preliminary grounds which formed the subject matter of several preliminery issues framed by the Labour Court.
The principal contentions raised by the appellant by way of preliminary objections were.
that the applications made by the respondents were not maintainable under section 33C (2) of the Act and that the said applications were barred by res judicata by reason of awards made in other proceedings between the same parties.
It was also urged by the appellant that if the claim made by the respondents was held to be justified by the direction of the award on which the respondents relied, then the said direction was given by the earlier Tribunal without jurisdiction and as such, was incapable of enforcement.
On the construction, the appellant urged that the said direction did not cover the cases of the respondents, and it was argued that even if the said direction was held to be valid and it was also held that it gave the respondents the right to make the present claim, the conditions precedent prescribed by the said direction had not been satisfied by any of the respondents, and so, on the merits, their claim could not be sustained.
713 The Labour Court took up for trial 10 prcliminary issues in the first instance and by its judgment delivered on June 3, 1961, it rejected all the preliminary pleas raised by the appellant.
In other words, the preliminary issues framed by the Labour Court were found in favour of the respondents.
Thereafter, the applications were set down for hearing on the merits and evidence was led by both the parties in support of their respective claims.
On considering the evidence, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the respondents had established their claims, and so, it has directed the appellant to pay to the respondents the respective amounts specified against their names in the award.
The plea raised by the appellant that the whole of the: claim made by the respondents should not be allowed on the ground of belatedness and laches, was, according to, the Labour Court, not sustainable under section 33C (2).
That is why the Labour Court computed the benefits claimed by the respondents in terms of money from the date when the earlier award became enforceable until the date of the present applications filed before it.
The appellant has come to this Court by special leave against the preliminary decision and the final order passed by the Labour Court in favour of the respondents.
Before dealing with the points raised in the present appeals by the appellant, it is necessary to set out briefly the terms of the earlier award on which the respondents ' claims are based.
In the previous industrial dispute, the employees of the appellant had made several demands.
In the present case, we are concerned with demand No. 11.
This demand was made in these terms "(a) Workers should get a paid weekly off.
(b) Weorkers of Mains, Services and District Fitting Departments and Lamp Repairers, 714 who have been adversely affected in the matter of their earnings on account of closing down of the overtime and Sunday Work, should be compensated for the loss suffered by them; compensation being the amount lost by them since the scheme was introduced.
" The Tribunal which dealt with this demand observed that demand No. 11 (a) had been badly worded.
There was, however, no doubt that what the employees claimed against the appellant was, in substance, a demand for paid weekly off only for those workers who were actually getting a weekly off, though without pay.
In dealing with this demand, the Tribunal noticed the fact that all the monthly paid staff employed by by the appellant got a paid weekly off,and so,it thought that there was no reason to dicriminate between the said staff and the daily rated workers.
In regard to the daily rated workers usually, their mothly income would be determined on the basis of a month consisting of 26 working days.
From the Statement of claim 'filed by the Union before the Tribunal, it appeared that prior to 1946, most of the workers used to work for all the seven days of the week.
By about August, 1946, however, weekly offs were enforced upon the major section of the workmen.
In June 1946, the appellant and the Union had entered into an agreement as regards wage scales of various categories of workers, and the Tribunal assumed that in respect of most of the daily rated workers, the wages must have been fixed on the basis of what their monthly income would be for 26 working days.
It is in the light of this.
background that the Tribunal proceeded to examine demand No. 11 (a).
The Tribunal noticed that in the case of the four categories of workers specified in demand No. 11 (b), difference had to be made because it could not be said in their case that their daily rates of 715 wages were fixed with reference to a month of 26 working days.
The result was that with the introduction of the weekly off, the wages of those workers were reduced.
Naturally, the Tribunal observed that in such a case, the concession of a weekly off would be a very doubtful benefit if as a result, the monthly income of the workers was to go down.
That is why the Tribunal gave the direction on which the respondents ' present claim is based.
This direction we have already quoted at the beginning of the judgment.
Having thus dealt with demand No. 11 (a), the Tribunal proceeded to examine, demand No, 11 (b), and it ordered that the workers of Mains, Services and District Fittings Departments and Lamp Repairers who had been adversely affected in the matter of their earnings on account of closing down of Sunday work, should be compensated for the loss suffered by them, by payment of their wages and dearness allowance for the weekly off given to them from June 1, 1949 onwards till the date of the publication of the award.
The question about the scope and effect of the provisions of section 33C (2) of the Act and the extent of the jurisdiction conferred on the Labour Court by it have been recently considered by us in the case of The Central Bank of India Ltd. vs P. section RajagopaIan (1).
That decision shows that the applications made by ' the respondents were competent and the Labour Court had jurisdiction to deal with the question as to the computation of the benefit conferred on the respondents in terms of money.
Mr. Kolah for the appellant contends that though the applications made by the respondents may be competent and the claim made by them may be examined under section 33C (2), it would, nevertheless, be open to the appellant to contend that the award on which the said claim is based is without jurisdiction and if he succeeds in (1) , 716 establishing his plea, the Labour Court would be justified in refusing to give effect to the said Award.
In our opinion, this contention is well founded.
The proceedings contemplated by section 330 (2) are, in many cases, analogous to execution proceedings, and the labour Court which is called upon to compute in terms of money the benefit claimed by an industrial employee is, in such cases, in the position of an executing court; like the executing court in execution proceedings governed by the Code of Civil Procedure the Labour Court under section 33C (2) would be competent to interpret the award on which the claim is based, and it would also be open to it to consider the plea that the award sought to be enforced is a nullity.
There is no doubt that if a decree put in execution is shown to be a nullity the executing court can refuse to execute it.
The same principle would apply to proceedings taken under s 33C (2) and the jurisdiction of the labour court before which the said proceedings are commenced.
Industrial Tribunals which deal with industrial disputes referred to them under section 10 (1) (d) of the Act are, in a sense, Tribunals with limited jurisdiction.
They are entitled to deal the disputes referred to them, but they cannot I outside the terms of reference and deal with matters not included in the reference, subject, of course, to incidental matters which fall within their jurisdiction.
Therefore, on principle, Mr. Kolah is right when he contends that the Labour Court would have been justified in refusing to implement the award, if it was satisfied that the direction in the award on which the respondents ' claim is based is without jurisdiction.
That takes us to the question about the merits of the plea raised.
by Mr. Kolah.
Mr. Kolah contends that the direction in question on which the respondent 's claim is based, is invalid for the reason that the Tribunal travelled outside the terms of reference when it added the words " 'and others" in the 717 said direction.
His argument is that the said direction has really been issued under demand No. 11 (b) and since the said demand was confined to the four categories of workmen specified in it, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to extend the relief to any workers outside the said four categories by adding the words " and others".
Thus presented, the argument is no doubt attractive, but on a careful examination of the scheme of the award in so far as it relates to demand No. 11, it would be clear that the impugned direction has relation not to demand No. 11 (6), but to demand No. 11(a), and it is obvious that demand referred to all workers and was not confine to any specified categories of workers.
It is true that in dealing with the said demand, the Tribunal prominently referred to the four categories of employees specified in demand No. 11 (b), but that is not to say that it was confining the said demand to the said four categories.
The said four categories were mentioned specifically because they clearly brought out the cases of workmen to whom relief was due under demand No. 11 (a).
Having thus dealt with the said four categories by name, the Tribunal thought it necessary, and we think, rightly, to add the words "and others", because if there were other workmen who were till 1948 required to work on Sundays and in respect of whom a weekly day off was introduced thereafter without any corresponding increase in their wages, there was no reason why they should not have been given the benefit which was given to the workmen of the four categories specifically discussed.
it is significant that having thus comprehensively described the workmen who were entitled to the said benefit, the Tribunal has added that in respect of the remaining workmen, demand No. 11 (a) was rejected.
Therefore, we are satisfied that the relief granted by the Tribunal in paragraph 115 of its award has reference.
to demand No. 11 (a) and the use of the words "and others" is not only not outside the terms of reference, but is quite appropriate and justified.
718 That being so, it is difficult to sustain the plea that the impugned direction was without jurisdiction.
Mr. Kolah no doubt relied on the fact that the present respondents never thought that they were entiteld to the benefit conferred by the impugned direction and in support of this plea, he referred us to the fact that in ' 1952, a demand was made on their behalf for a similar benefit.
If the respondents had felt that the benefit conferred by the impugned direction was available to them, it is very unlikely says Mr. Kolah, that they would have made the same demand in 1952 on the basis that it had not been granted to them by the earlier award.
It does appear that this demand was made on behalf of the respondents and the Government of Bombay took the view that the said demand had already been considered by the Tribunal and that it was too late to reopen it in regard to other categories of employees; that is why the Government refused to make a reference.
In our opinion, this fact cannot materially assist Mr. Kolah, because on a fair and reasonable construction of the material direction in the award, we are satisfied that the said clause applies to all workers of the appellant who satisfy the test prescribed by it.
If the respondents did not understand the true scope and effect of the said clause, that cannot affect the construction of the clause.
Therefore, we do not think that the failure of the respondents to take advantage of the said clause soon after the earlier award was pronounced can have any bearing on the construction of the clause.
Then, Mr. Kolah has suggested that on the merits the respondents are not entitled to make the claim, because, it is not shown by them that they were required to work on all Sundays in the relevant years.
He argues that the test prescribed by the direction is that the benefit should be available to 719 workmen who were, till 1948, required to work on Sundays and that, it is suggested, must mean "who were required to work on all Sundays in the year".
This argument has been examined by the Labour Court and it has found that the respondents were required to work on Sundays before 1948, though they might not have attended on all Sundays.
In support of this finding, the Labour Court has referred to Ext.
32 and has drawn the inference from the said document that the workers in the Syphon Department were required to work on all Sundays before September, 1948, and it has added that the fact that they did not work on some Sundays may be attributed to some casual circumstances, such as the workers having voluntarily remained absent, or there not being sufficient work for all, some might have been sent home.
Mr. Kolah has invited our attention to the chart (Ext. 32) and has shown that in some cases, the employees were not required to work even half the number of Sundays during that year.
In our opinion, this argument proceeds on a misconstruction of the relevant clause in the award.
The said clause does not provide that before getting the benefit in question, the workers must show that they actually worked on all Sundays in the year.
The test which has to be satisfied by the workers is that they could have been required to work on Sundays in that year.
In other words, what the Tribunal decided was that if there were workers employed by the appellant whom the appellant could require to work on Sundays during the relevant year, they would be entitled to the benefit.
In other words, the test is : did the terms and conditions of service impose an obligation on the workers to attend duties on Sundays if called upon to do so? That is very different from saying that the benefit would be available only if the workers in question worked on all Sundays.
Therefore, we do not think there is any substance in the argument that since the respondents had not been actually required to work on all Sundays in the 720 relevant year, they were not entitled to the benefit of the relevant clause in the award.
That leaves one more question to be considered.
Mr. Kolah has strenuously argued that the Labour Court should not have allowed the claim of the respondents for such a long period when they made the present applications nearly 8 years after the award was pronounced.
It is true that the earlier award was pronounced on May 11, 1950 and the present applications were made in 1958.
In support of his argument that the delay made by the respondents should be taken into account, Mr. Kolah has referred to the fact that under the Payment of Wages Act (No. 4 of 1936) a claim for wages has to be made within six months from the date on which the cause of action accrues to the employees.
In the State of Maharashtra, by local modification, this period is prescribed as one year.
The argument is that the present claim made by the respondents under section 33 C(2) is a claim for wages within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act.
If the respondents had made such a claim before the authority under the said Act, they could not have got relief for more than a year.
It would be anomalous, says Mr. Kolah.
that by merely changing the forum, the respondents should be permitted to make a claim for as many as 8.
years under section 33C (2).
In this connection, Mr. Kolah also contends that by virtue of section 22 of the Payment of wages Act, a claim for wages cannot be made by an industrial employee in a civil court after a lapse of one year, because though the period for such a., suit may be 3 years under article 102, a civil suit is barred by section 22.
The jurisdiction conferred on the payment authority is exclusive and so far as the said Act goes, all claims must be made within one year.
Prima facie, there is some force in this argument.
It does appear to be somewhat anomalous that a claim which would be rejected as barred by 721 time if made under the Payment of Wages Act., should be entertained under section 33C (2) of the Act; but does this apparent anomaly justify the introduction of considerations of limitation in proceedings under section 33C (2)? Mr. Kolah suggests that it would be open to this Court to treat leaches on the part of the employees as a relevant factor even in dealing with case under section 33C (2) and he has relied one fact that this Court has on several occasions discouraged belated claims in the matter of bonus.
in appreciating the validity of this I argument, we do not propose to consider whether the jurisdiction conferred on the authority under the Payment of Wages Act is exclusive in the sense that a claim for wages cannot be made by an industrial employee in a civil court within 3 years as permitted by article 102; that is a question which may have to be decided on the merits when it directly arises.
For the purpose of the present appeal, the only point which we have to consider is : does the fact that for recovery of wages limitation has been prescribed by the payment of Wages Act.
Justify the introduction of considerations of limitation in regard to proceedings taken under section 33C (2) of the Act ? In dealing with this question, it is necessary to bear in mind that though the legislature knew how the problem of recovery of wages had been tackled by the Payment of Wages Act and how limitation had been prescribed in that behalf, it has omitted to make any provision for limitation in enacting section 33C (2).
The failure of the legislature to make any provision for limitation cannot, in our opinion, be deemed to be an accidental omission.
In the circumstances, it would be legitimate to infer that legislature deliberately did not provide for any limitation under section 33C (2).
It may have been thought that the employees who are entitled to take the benefit of section 330 (2) may not always be conscious of their rights and it would not be right to put the restriction 722 of limitation in respect of claims which they may have to make under the said provision.
Besides, even if the analogy of execution proceedings is treated as relevant, it is well known that a decree passed under the Code of Civil Procedure is capable of execution within 12 years, provided, of course, it is kept alive by taking steps in aid of execution from time to time as required by article 182 of the Limitation Act, so that the test of one year or six months ' limitation prescribed by the Payment of Wages Act cannot be treated as a uniform and universal test in respect of all kinds of execution claims.
It seems to us that where the legislature has made no provision for limitation, it would not be open to the courts to introduce any such limitation on grounds of fairness or justice.
The words of section 33C (2) are plain and unambiguous and it would be the duty of the Labour Court to give effect to the said provision without any considerations of limitation.
Mr. Kolah no doubt emphasised the fact that such belated claims made on a large scale may cause considerable inconvenience to the employer, but that is a consideration which the legislature may take into account, and if the legislature feels thatch play and justice require that some limitations be prescribed, it 'may proceed to do so.
In the absence of any provision,however, the Labour Court cannot import any such consideration in dealing with the applications made under section 33C (2).
Mr. Kolah then attempted to suggest that article 181 in the First Schedule of the Limitation Act may apply to the present applications, and a period of 3 years ' limitation should, therefore, be held to govern them.
Article 181 provides 3 years ' limitation for applications for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in Schedule 1, or by section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the said period starts when the right to apply accrues.
In our opion, this argument is one of desperation.
It is well settled 723 that article 181 applies only to applications which are made under the Code of Civil Procedure, and so, its extension to applications made under section 33C (2) of the Act would not be justified.
As early as 1880, the Bombay High Court had held in Rai Manekbai vs Manekji Kavasji (1), that article 181 only relates to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure in which case no period of limitation has been prescribed for the application, and the consensus of judicial opinion on this point had been noticed by the Privy Council in Hansraj Gupta vs Official Liquidator8, Dehra Dun Mussoorie Electric Tramway Company Ltd. (2) An attempt was no doubt made in the case of Sha Vulchand & Co. Ltd. vs Jawahar Mills Ltd. (3), to suggest that the amendment of articles 158 and 178 ipso facto altered the meaning which had been attached to the words in article 181 by judicial decisions, but this attempt failed, because this Court held " 'that the long catenate of decisions under article 181 may well be said to have, as it were, added the words "under the Code" in the first column of that Article.
" Therefore it is not possible to accede to the argument that the limitation prescribed by article 181 can be invoked in dealing with applications under section 33C (2) of the Act.
It is true that in dealing with claims like bonus, industrial adjudication has generally discouraged laches and delay, but claims like bonus must be distinguished from claims made under section 33C (2).
A claim for bonus, for instance, is entertained on grounds of social justice and is not based on any statutory provision.
In such a case,, it would, no doubt, be open to industrial adjudication to have regard to all the relevant considerations before awarding the claim and in doing so, if it appears that a claim for bonus was made after long lapse of time, industrial adjudication may refuse to entertain the claim, or Government nay refuse to make reference in that behalf.
But these considerations would (1)[1880] I.L R. (2) [1932] L.R. 60 I.A. 13, 20.
(3) ; , 371 , 724 be irrelevant when claims are made under section 33C (2), where these claims are, as in the present case, based on an award and are intended 'merely to execute the award.
In such a case, limitation cannot be introduced by industrial adjudication on academic ground of social justice.
It can be introduced, if at all, by the legislature.
Therefore, we think, that the Labour Court was right in rejecting the appellant 's contention that since the present claim was belated, it should not be awarded.
In the result, the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.
Appeals dismissed.

Output:
Petitions were filed by sixteen respondents under section 33C(2) of the , claiming certain benefits under an award made by an Industrial Tribunal.
The prayer was to compute the benefits in terms of money and direct the appellant to pay the same to them.
Many objections were raised by the appellant but these were rejected by the Labour Court which accepted the claim of the respondents and directed the appellant to pay to the respondents the respective amounts specified against their names in the award.
The appellant came to this Court by special leave.
The contentions raised by the appellant before this Court were that the award, on which the claim was based, was without jurisdiction and hence the Labour Court should have refused to implement it; that in order to get benefit, the workers must show that they actually worked on all Sundays in the year before September, 1948; and that as the claims of the respondents were belated, those should not have been awarded.
Held that the Labour Court would have been justified In refusing to implement the award if it was satisfied that the 710 direction in the award on which the respondents ' claim was based, was without jurisdiction, but as that was not actually so, the impugned direction was according to law.
The applications made by respondents were competent and the Labour Court had jurisdiction to deal with the question as to the computation of the benefit conferred on the respon dents in terms of money.
The proceedings contemplated by section 330 (2) were, in many cases, analogous to execution proceed ings and the Labour Court which was called upon to compute in terms of money the benefit claimed by an industrial employee, was in the position of an executing court and was competent to interpret the award on which the claim was based and also consider the plea that the award, sought to be enforced, was a nullity.
Held also, that there was no substance in the argument that since the respondents had not been actually required to work on all Sundays in the relevant year, they were not entitled to the benefit given in the award.
The test which had to be satisfied by the workers was that they could have been required to work on Sundays in that year and not that they actually so worked.
Held also, that the legislature has not made any provision for limitation for applications under section 33C (2) and it was not open to the Courts to introduce any such limitation on grounds of fairness or justice, The words of section 33 C (2) were plain and unambiguous and it was the duty of the Labour Court to give effect to the said provisions without any considerations of limitation.
The employees who are entitled to take the benefit of section 33C (2) may not always be conscious of their right and it would not be right to put the restriction of limitation in respect of claims which they may have to make under the said provision.
There was no justification for applying the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act and article 181 of the Limitation Act to the proceeding under section 33C (2).
Claims like bonus arc distinguishable from claims made under section 33C (2).
A claim for bonus is entertained on grounds of social justice and is not based on any statutory provision and in such a case, it is open to industrial adjudication to have regard to all the relevant considerations before awarding the claim and in doing so if it appears that a claim for bonus was made after long lapse of time, industrial adjudication may refuse to entertain the claim or Government may refuse to make the reference in that , behalf.
711 However, those considerations are irrelevant when claims we made under section 330 (2).
In such cases limitation cannot be introduced by industrial adjudication on academic grounds of social justice.
Central Bank of India Ltd. vs P. section Rajagopalan, [1964] Vol.
3 S.C.R. 140; Rai Manekbai vs Manekji Kavasji, (1883) 7 Bom.
213; Hansral Gupta vs Official Liquidators, Dehra Dun Musoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd., (1932) L.R. 60 I.A. 13 and Sha Mulchand & Co. Ltd. vs Jawahar Millar Ltd. ; , referred to.


Input:
N: Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1971.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated the 20th November, 1970 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 495 of 1968.
D. Mukherjee, U. K. Jha and U. P. Singh: for the Appellant.
D. P. Unival and o. P. Rana for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG, J.
The four appellants Daryao Singh, aged 46 years.
Birbal aged 50 years, Dharam Pal aged 29 years and Om Pal, aged 15 years, were tried, alongwith 14 others, for the offence of rioting in the course of which two murders were committed, on 7.6.1967, at about 6.30 a.m., on a path adjoining the field of the appellant Daryao Singh leading to village Parsoli from village Nirpura, in Police Station Doghat, in the District of Meerut.
The Trial Court acquitted eleven accused persons giving them the benefit of doubt and convicted seven including the four appellants.
Each of the accused persons was charged and convicted under Section 302, read with Sections 149, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment, in addition to charges and convictions under Section 149/324 and 149/34 I.P.C. and either under Section 147 or Section 148 I.P.C. depending upon the weapon alleged to have been used by an accused person.
589 The prosecution case revealed a long standing enmity between two groups of village Nirpura: one to which the appellants belonged and another to which Mukhtara and Raghubir, the murdered men, and the four other injured persons belonged.
As is not unusual, the origin of the hostility between the two sides seems to have been a dispute over cultivable land between collaterals who had some joint Khatas.
Asa Ram, P.W. 1, claimed to be in separate possession of some plots with his two brothers, including Raghubira (murdered), and his uncle Mukhtara (murdered) .
It was alleged by Asa Ram (P.W. 1) that Daryao Singh appellant wanted to take forcible possession of some land cultivated by him.
Daryao Singh and others had already filed partition suit which was pending at the time of the occurrence.
It appears that Hargyan, the father of the appellant Daryao, a first cousin of Mukhtara, the murdered man, had also been murdered in 1923 over a similar dispute.
Asa Ram (P.W.1), and Raghubira (deceased), Bija (P.W. 10) and Asghar (P.W 4) had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
They had been released on parole after five years ' imprisonment On the date of occurrence, Mukhtara, the murdered man, was said to be proceeding with Raghubir, who was also murdered, and Asa Ram, P.W.1, and Bija, P.W.10, all sitting in a buggi driven by Asghar, P.W.4, and Smt.
Jahani, P.W.3, the wife of Asa Ram, P.W.1, was said to be following the buggi at a short distance with some food for the party.
When this buggi reached the field of Daryao Singh, where a number of persons, said to be eighteen altogether, whose names are mentioned in the First Information Report lodged at Police Station Doghat at a distance of three miles from village Nirpura at 8.30 a.m., were sitting on the boundary.
These persons are alleged to have surrounded the buggi and attacked its occupants with balams and lathies shouting that the whole party in the buggi should be killed.
give occupants of the buggi, and, after that, Smt.
Jahani, who soon joined them, were injured.
Two of them, Mukhtara and Raghubir, died very soon after the attack.
It was alleged that Dharam Pal, Birbal and Daryao, appellants, and Nahar, Ajab Singh, and Ram Kishan, acquitted persons, were armed with balams, one Salek Chand was armed with a spade, and the rest with lathis.
A number of witnesses are said to have arrived in response to the shout of the injured occupants of the buggi.
The following injuries are shown to have been sustained by the victims of the attack: 1. MUKHTARA: "1.
Vertical abrasion, 1 1/2 in.
x 1/2 in.
On the head, 4 in.
above the middle of the left eye brow 2.
Transverse abrasion, 1 3/4 in.x3/4 in.
On the head, 5 in.
above the right eye brow.
Round swelling" 2 in.x2 in.
On the right side of the head, 1/2 in.
above the ear, there was a depressed fracture 2 in.x2 in.
underneath on the bone.
Transverse incised wound 1 1/2in.x1/2 in.xboneand brain deep on the head 1 in.
behind the middle of the right car.
Brain matter was coming out of the wound.
590 5.
Transverse incised wound 1 1/4in.x 1/2 in.
x bone deep on the A head 3 in.
behind the upper part of the right car.
The margins of injuries Nos. 4 and 5 were clear cut, smooth and well defined and angles on both the end were acute.
Round blue mark 2 in.x2 in.
On the right shoulder portion.
There was swelling all over the head.
There was no reference of injuries Nos. 1 and 6 in the inquest report .
RAGHUBIRA 1.
Transverse abrasion 1/4 in.x1/2.
On the left ankle inner side.
Vertical punctured wound in.x1/3 in.x1/4 in.
On the back side, of the elbow, margins, clean cut.
smooth and wall defined and angles were acute.
Transverse lacerated wound on the head, 1 1/2 in.
x 2 in.
bone deep on the right side 3 in above the car.
Round wound on the head 4 1/2 in.
above the middle of the right eye brow with margins clean cut".
ASA 1.
Punctured wound 1/2 in.x1/4 in.x1/4 in.
On the left side of the chest with abrasions on the margins, 64 in.
below the axile.
Abrasion 1/2 in.x1/4 in.
On the left shoulder.
Abrasion 1/2 in.x1/4 in.
oblique, on the right side of the chest extending towards right shoulder from epigastrium.
Abrasion 1/4 in.x1/8 in.
On the inner side of the left hand I in.
above the wrist.
Abrasion 1/4in.x1/6 in.
On the right arm back side 3 in.
above the elbow.
Contusion 3/4 in.x1/2 in.
On the right side 3 in.
below the edge of the iliac crest.
Incised wound 1/2 in.x1/10 in.
x skin deep 1/2 in.
below the left eye.
" 4. SMT.
JAHANI: 1.
Lacerated wound 1 1/3 in.
x 1/2 in.
bone deep from front to backward 3 1/2 in.
above the left ear.
Contusion 4 1/4 in.x1 in.
On the left scapular region.
2 1/2 in.
below the shoulder.
Contusion 1 1/2 in.x1/4 in.
parallel to the earth extending from the upper and inner end of injury No. 2.
These injuries were simple and had been caused by some blunt weapon, like lathi and were about 6 hours old (fresh).
I had prepared the injury report exhibit Ka 16 at the time of examination.
It bears my signature and is correct." 591 5.
ASGHAR: 1.
Contusion 2 in.x1/4 in.x1/4 in.
going from front to back 31 in.
above the nose.
Punctured wound 1 in.x ' in.x 4 in.
On the left hand, outer side 2 in.
below the elbow.
BIJAI SINGH: 1.
Contused wound 1/2 in.x1/2 in.
x skin deep at the part above the nail of the thumb of right hand with contusion 1 1/4 in.
x1/2 in.
in the inner part of the nail.
Contusion 2 1/4 in.x3/4 in.
extending from the palm on the 1st and 2nd knuckles whereblood had clotted in an area of 1/2 in.
x1/4 .
On the palmer side.
Abrasion 1/2 in.x1/4 in.
On the back and anterior side of right hand, 3 1/2 in.
above the wrist.
" Injuries were found on the side of the accused on 3 appellants only.
They were as follows: (1) OM PAL: 1.
Lacerated wound 1/2 in.x4/10 in.x2/10 in.
on the inner side of left forearm 3 1/2 in.
above the left wrist.
Lacerated wound 2/10 in.x2/10 in.x6/10 in.
On the inner side of left forearm.
Abrasion 3/10 in.
X21 10 in.
On the upper r side of left forearm, 3 1/2 in.
above the left wrist.
" 2. DARYAO: "1.
Abrasion in.x3/10 in on the left shoulder in front side.
Wound with scab 4/10 in.x2/10 in.
On the left are outer side, 6 in.
below left shoulder".
BIRBAL: 1.
Lacerated wound 2 in.x3/10 in.
bone deep on the front , side of head.
Abrased contusion 1 in.x2/10 in.
On the left side of head, 3 in.
above the left ear.
Contusion 1/2 in.x4/10 in.
On the right side of head, 2 in.
above the right ear.
Abrasion 1/4 in.x1/4 in.
On the index finger of the right hand upper side on the middle phalux.
Abrasion 1/4 in.x1/4 in.
On the upper side at the root of the middle finger of right hand.
Abrasion 1/2 in.x1/10 in.
On the inner side of the lower portion of left fore arm, 3 in.
above the wrist.
Abrasion 3/10 in.x1/10 in.
On the inner side of left wrist.
592 8.
Lacerated wound 3/10 in.x1/10 in.x3/10 in.
an the A right at a distance of 31 in.
from side of thigh, anterior iliac spine".
It is significant that in answer to the last question put to Daryao Singh, appellant, in the Committing Magistrate 's Court, under Section 342 Criminal Procedure Code, whether he had nothing else to say, the first thing that came to his mind was that Asa Ram P.W.1, and Bijai, P.W. 10 and Raghubir (deceased) had killed his father about 15 years ago.
The defense case seemed quite absurd.
It was that, Asa Ram and Bijai and Asghar, after having killed Mukhtara and Raghubir, haul come and attacked the three injured appellants at the time and place given by the, prosecution.
Their defense witness, however, in an obvious attempt to explain the injuries of the three appellants, put forward the entirely new version that, when Asa, Bijai, and Asghar, were killing Mukhtara and Raghubir, the three injuries appellants had attempted to save the murdered men and were injured as a consequence.
The accused had even filed a First Information Report on these lines.
They unsuccessfully tried to prosecute Asa and Bijai and Asghar who could not, as the Trial Court and the High Court had rightly observed, be expected to run berserk suddenly and attack persons on their own side for no explicable reason.
The prosecution had, in addition to examining injured witnesses, mentioned above, produced Rattan Singh P.W.2, Kalu, P.W.9, and Lakhi, P.W.7, whose testimony was discarded by it on two grounds: firstly, because each one was shown to have some enmity with some accused person; and, secondly, because they were said to have been standing at a Harat nearly 400 paces away from where` according to the High Court, they could not have seen the occurrence.
If there was no obstruction to the range, of vision, and none was shown by evidence, these witnesses could at least make out the number of assailants from this distance as sunlight was there.
The prosecution evidence suffered from some quite obvious infirmities.
Each of the four injured eye witnesses, while naming each of the eighteen accused persons as participants in the occurrence and specifying their weapons, without any contradiction, had failed to assign any particular part to any of them.
Each injured witness said that all the eighteen accused persons, named in the First information Report, were assaulting the injured.
This was hardly consistent with either the medical evidence or the very short time the whole occurrence was said to have lasted.
It was physically impossible for all the eighteen accused persons to attack simultaneously each of the five victims.
However, we cannot interpret the impressions of rustic witnesses, sought to be conveyed through their statements` as though they were made in carefully drawn up documents calling for a literal interpretation.
It was likely that each of them had seen some acts of some assailants, but, due to natural discrepancies in their accounts, as each could only depose the part he had observed, each had been instructed to omit this part of his testimony.
That may explain how each consistently stated that all the accused persons were attacking 593 his or her party although he or she could not specify which accused attacked which victim.
From the manner in which each witness could, without making any mistake, name each of the eighteen accused persons, almost in the same order, and specify the weapon each carried, without any discrepancy, some tutoring could be suspected.
Nevertheless, both the Trial Court and the High Court had reached the definite conclusion that the party of assailants consisted of more than five persons.
It also found that this party was sitting on the boundary of the field of Daryao, apparently waiting with their weapons for the buggi, carrying Raghubir and Mukhtara and others., to reach the spot where they surrounded it and attacked.
It was clear, from the nature and number of injuries of both sides, which we have set out above in extenso, that the attacking party must have consisted of more persons than the party of the male victims who were five in number.
Even if these five victims were sitting in the buggi they were not all empty handed.
Some of them had lathis which they plied in self defence.
The number and location of injuries on both sides also indicated an attack by a group of persons which must have surrounded the party traveling in the buggi.
Even if two persons are engaged in stopping the buggi and there are two on each of the two sides of the buggi their number would be six.
Again, even if at least one person is assumed to be the assailant of each of the victims, in a simultaneous attack upon them, the number of such assailants alone would come to at least six.
It is, however, clear from the injuries on Mukhtara and Raghubir that each was attacked by more than one person because each had injuries with sharp edged weapons and lathis.
these facts were enough to come to the conclusion that the total number of assailants could not conceivably have been less than five.
The High Court however, after giving the benefit of doubt to four of the accused persons, on the ground that their cases did not differ from those of the others acquitted, came to the obviously correct conclusion that at least the four appellants before us must have taken part in the attack because they admitted their participation in the occurrence which took place at the time and place of the incident in which Raghubir and Mukhtara had lost their lives.
Three of the accused persons as already indicated, had received injuries.
On their own version, these injuries were sustained in the same occurrence.
If, therefore, the prosecution version about the broad character of the incident is correct, the only question which remained was: Against which accused person was the case of participation in the attack established beyond reason able doubt? The High Court came to the conclusion that the admissions of the four accused, corroborated by the injuries on the bodies of three OF them, left no doubt whatsoever that they were, in any case, among the assailants.
The others had merely been given the benefit of doubt lest some injustice is done by relying implicitly on partisan witnesses appearing in a type of case in which the innocent ale not infrequently sought to be roped in with the guilty who are, of course, not spared.
This did not mean that the total number of assailants was actually less than five as the learned Counsel for the appellants asked us to presume from the fact that fourteen out of the eighteen accused persons were actually acquitted.
594 It is true that the acquittal of an accused person does raise, in the eye of law, a presumption that he is innocent even if he was actually.
guilty.
But, it is only the acquitted accused person and not the convicted accused persons who can, as a rule, get the benefit of such a presumption.
The effect of findings on questions of fact depends upon the nature of those findings.
If, for example, only five known persons are alleged to have participated in an attack but the Courts find that two of them were falsely implicated, it would be quite nature; and logical to infer or presume that the participants were less than five in number.
On the other hand, if the Court holds that the assailants were actually five in number, but there could be a doubt as to the identity of two of the alleged assailants, and, therefore, acquits two of them the others will not get the benefit of doubt about the identity of the two accused so long as there is a firm finding, based on good evidence and sound reasoning, that the participants were five or more in number.
Such a case is one of doubt only as to identity of some participants and not as to be total number of participants.
It may be that a definite conclusion that the number of participants was at least five may be very difficult to reach whale the allegation of participation is confined to five known persons and there is doubt about the identity of even one.
But, where a large number of known persons (such as eighteen, as is the case before us), are alleged to have participated and the Court acts on the principle that it is better to err on the side of safety, so that no injustice is done to a possibly wrongly implicated accused, and benefit of doubt is reaped by a large number, with the result that their acquittal, out of abundant caution, reduces the number of those about whose participation there can be no doubt to less than five, it may not be really difficult at all, as it not in she case before us, to recall the conclusion that, having laggard to undeniable facts, the number of participants could not possibly be less than five.
We have, for the reasons given above, also reached the same conclusion as the learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court.
We wish that the High Court had itself given such reasons, which are not at all difficult to find in this case, so that its conclusion on the number of participants may not have appeared ratter abrupt.
Justice has not only to be done, but, as have been often said, must manifestly appear to be done.
Even if the number of assailants could have been less them five in the instant case (which, we think, on the facts stated above, was really not possible), we think that the fact that the attacking party was clearly shown to have waited for the buggi to reach near the field of Daryao in the early hours of 7.6.1967, shows pre planning.
Some Of the assailants had sharp edged weapons.
They were obviously lying in wait for the buggi to arrive.
They surrounded and attacked the occupants shouting that the occupants will be killed.
We do not think that more convincing evidence of a pre concert was necessary.
Therefore, if we had thought it necessary, we would not have hesitated to apply Section 34, I.P.C. also to this case.
The principle of vicarious liability does not depend upon the necessity to convict a required number of persons.
It depends upon proof of facts, beyond reasonable 595 doubt which makes such principle applicable.
(See: Yehwant & Anr.
vs State of Maharashtra;(1) and Sukh Ram vs State of U.P.)(2).
The most general and basic rule, on a question such as the one we are considering, is that there is no uniform, inflexible or invariable rule applicable for arriving at what is really an inference form the totality of facts and circumstances which varies from case to case.
We have to examine the elect of findings given in each case on this totality.
It is rarely exactly identical with that in another case.
Other rules are really subsidiary to this basic verity and depend for their correct application OF the peculiar facts and circumstances in the context of which they are enunciated.
In Yeshwant 's case (supra), the question was whether the acquit(ah of an alleged participant, said to be Brahmanand Tiwari, for the murder of a man called Sukal, could make it impossible to apply the principle of vicarious liability to convict, under Section 302/34 I.P.C., Yeshwant, the only other participant in under.
This Court observed (at p.303): The benefit of this doubt can only go to the appellant Brahmanand Tiwari and not to the other accused persons 13 who were known well to each eye witness." Distinguishing Krishna Govind Patil vs State of Maharashtra (3) this Court said in Yeshwant 's case (supra) (at p. 302): "We do not think that this decision which depends upon its own facts, as criminal cases generally do, lays down any general principle that, where the identity of one of the participants is doubtful, the whole case must end in acquittal.
Such a question belongs to the realm of facts and not of law: ` The following cases were also cited before us: Dalip Singh & vs State of Punjab (4) Bharwad Mepa Dana & Anr.
vs State of Bombay;(5) Kartar Singh vs State of Punjab;(6) Mohan Singh vs State of Punjab;(7) Ram Bilas Singh & Ors.
vs State of Bihar(8) In the case of Ram Bilas Singh (supra) previous decisions of this Court on the question argued before us have been considered at some length and a passage from Krishna Govind Patil 's case (supra) was also quoted.
In none of these cases was it decided that where, out of abundance of caution, a large number of accuse(l persons obtained an acquittal with the result that the number of those whose participation is established beyond reasonable doubt is reduced to less than five, but, at the same time, it is clear that the total number of assailants could not be less than five, the convicted accused persons must necessarily get the benefit of doubt arising in the case of the acquitted accused persons.
A case like the one before us stands on the Same footing as any other case where there is certainty that the number of participants was not less than five but there is doubt only as to (1) [1973] I S.C.R. p. 291 @ 302 & 303.
(2) [1974) 2 S.C.R. p. 518.
(3) ; (4) ; (5) ; (6) ; (7) [1962] Suppl (3) S.C.R. 848.
(8) 596 The identity of some of the participants.
It has to be remembered that doubts may arise with regard to the participation of a particular accused person in circumstances whose benefit can only be reaped by the accused who raises such doubt.
Doubts may also arise about the veracity of the whole prosecution version and doubts about the participation of individual accused persons may contribute to the emergence of such doubts which may cover and engulf the whole case.
Never the less, if, as in the instant case, the Courts, whose duty is to separate the chaff from the grain, does hold that the convicted persons were certainly members of an unlawful assembly which must have consisted of more than five persons, we do not see any principle of law or justice which could stand in the way of the application of Section 149 J.P.C. for convicting those found indubitably guilty of participation in carrying out of the common object of an unlawful assembly.
The only remaining question arises from the age of Om Pal Which, at the time of trial, was found by the Trial Court to be about 15 years.
This means that Section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Children Act, 1951, was applicable to the case.
This Section reads as follows: "29.
Commitment of child to approved school (1) Where a child is found to have committed an offence punishable with transportation or imprisonment, the Court, if satisfied on inquiry that it is expedient so to deal with the child, may order him to be sent to an approved school for such period of stay as will not exceed beyond the time when the child will attain the age of 18 years or for a shorter period, the reasons for such period to be recorded in writing.
(2) Where prior to the commencement of this Act a youthful offender has been sentenced to transportation Or imprisonment, the State Government may direct that in lieu of undergoing or completing such sentence he shall, if under the age of sixteen years, be sent to an approved school, and thereupon the offender shall be subject to all the provisions of this Act as if he had been originally ordered to be detained in such school.
" This question was not raised earlier so that the Trial Court or the High Court may take the action it was open to the Courts to take after due inquiry.
Such action, if considered expedient, could only be to send the appellant to an approved school.
We may observed that, although the appellant om Pal was said to be armed with a lathi, no specific part was assigned to him by any prosecution witnesses.
He was bound, with the background of hostility between two sides and 597 the events mentioned above, to have been misled by the bad example of his elders.
No previous participation in such a case and no previous conviction was shewn against him.
We, therefore, think that appropriate action under Section 29 of the Children 's Act could have been taken in his case if the question had been raised in time.
We hope that the punishment he has already undergone has had a salutary effect in making him conscious of the gravity of the consequences of joining an unlawful assembly.
All that we can do now, in the circumstances of Om Pal 's case, is to recommend the remission of the remaining period of om Pal 's sentence to the authorities concerned.
Subject to the observations made above with regard to om Pal, we affirm the convictions and sentences and dismiss this appeal.

Output:
The 4 appellants were tried along with 14 others for the offence of rioting in the course of which 2 murders were committed at 6 30 a.m on 7 1967.
The prosecution revealed a long standing enmity between the tyo groups; one to which the appellants belonged and the other to which the deceased belonged.
The defence case was that people belonging to the group of the deceased killed the deceased and that thereafter they attacked the 3 injured appellants.
At the trial however, the defence witnesses stated that the 3 witnesses who were injured(l a(tempted to save the deceased and were therefore injured.
The prosecution evidence suffered from some quite obvious infirmitied.
Each of the 4 injured eye witnesses while naming each of the IX accused persons as participants in the occurrence and specifying their weapons without any contradiction had failed to assign any particular part of any of them.
Each injured eye witness said that all 18 accused persons were assaulting the injured.
I his was hardly consistent with the medical evidence.
The Trial Court acquitted 11 accused giving them the benefit of doubt and convicted 7 including the 4 appellants under section 302 read with section 149.
The High Court gave the benefit of doubt to all the accused except the 4 appellants.
The High Court came to the conclusion that the 4 appellants had taken part in The attack in view of the admission of the 4 accused about their participating in the occurrence corroborated by the injuries on the bodies of 3 of them.
On appeal by Special leave it was contended by the appellants that since 14 out of 18 accused persons were actually acquitted the Court must presume that total number of assailants was less than 5 and that they.
therefore cannot be convicted under section t 49 ^ HELD: 1.
It is true that the acquittal of an accused person does raise in the eye of law, a presumption that he is innocent even if he was actually guilty.
but it is only the acquitted accused person and not the convicted accused person who can as a rule get the benefit of such a presumption.
The effect of findings on questions of fact depends upon the nature of those findings 1 only five known persons are alleged to have participated in an attack; and the counts find that 2 of them were falsely implicated it would be quite natural and logical to infer or presume that the participants were less than 5 in number.
On the other.
hand if the court holds that the assailant were actually 5 in number but there could be a doubt as to the identity of 2 of the alleged assailants and therefore acquits 2 of them the others will not get the benefit of douht.
so long as there is a firm finding based on good evidence and sound reasoning that the participants were 5 or more in number.
Such a ease is one of doubt only as to identity of some participants and not as to total number of participants.
[594A C] 2.
It is true that there are some unfirmities in the prosecution evidence However the impression of rustic witnesses sought to he conveyed through their statements cannot be interpreted as though they were made in carefully drawn up documents calling for a literal interpretation.
[592 H] 588 3.
The number and location of injuries on both sides also indicate an attack by a group of persons which must have surrounded the party of the deceased persons travelling in the Buggi.
Even is 2 persons are engaged in stopping the Buggi and there are 2 on each side of the Buggi then the number would be 6.
Again, even if one person Is assumed to be the assailant of each of the victims in a simultaneous attack upon them the number of such assailants alone would come to at least 6.
The deceased had injuries with sharp edged weapons and lathis.
It is therefore clear that each one was attacked by more than one person.
These facts were enough to come to the conclusion that the total number of assailants could not conceivably have been less than 5.
[593 C E] 4.
Even if the number of assailants could have been less than 5 (which can the facts stated was really not possible) we think that the fact that the attacking party was clearly shown to have waited for the Buggi to reach near the field of Daryao in the early hours shows pre planning.
Some of the assailants had sharp edged weapons.
They were obviously lying in wait for the Buggi to arrive.
A more convincing evidence of a pre concert was not necessary.
Therefor if necessary.
we would not have hesitated to apply section 31 of I.P.C. also to this case.
The principle of vicarious liability does not depend upon the necessity to convict the required number of persons but it depends upon proof of facts beyond reasonable doubt which makes such a principle applicable.
[594 F H 595 A] Yeshwant & Anr.
vs State of Maharashtra [1973] 1 S.C.R. 291 It 302 303 at and Sukh Ram vs State of U.P. ; distinguished.
5.The age of appellant Om Pal at the time of trial was IS years.
Section 29 of the U.P. Children Act 1951 was applicable to the case.
This question was not raised either before the Trial Court or before the High Court.
Although Om Pal accused was said to be armed with a lathi no specific part was assigned to him by the prosecution witnesses He must have been misled by the bad example of his elders.
No previous participation in such a case and no previous conviction was shown against him.
The appropriate ac(ion under section 29 of the Children Act could have been taken in his case is the question had been raised in time.
The Court recommended the remission of the remaining period of Om Pal to the authorities concerned.
[548D H. 599A C]


Input:
15 of 1959, 14 of 1960 and 21 of 1959.
Petitions under article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Frank Anthony and J. B. Dadachanji, for the petitioners (In Petns.
Nos. 15 and 21 of 1959).
612 H. J. Umrigar, O. P. Rana and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the petitioners (In Petn.
No. 14 of 1960).
L. K. Jha and section P. Varma, for the respondent (In Petn.
No. 15 of 1959).
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, M. Adhikari, Advocate General for the State of Madhya Pradesh and I. N. Shroff, for the respondent (In Petn.
No. 14 of 1960).
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India and C. P. Lal, for the respondent (In Petn.
No. 21 of 1959).
November 23.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by section K. DAS, J.
These three writ petitions have been heard together, as they raise common questions of law and fact.
They relate, however, to three different enactments made by the Legislatures of three different States Bihar in writ petition No. 15, Uttar Pradesh in writ petition No. 21, and Madhya Pradesh in writ petition No. 14.
The petitioners in the several petitions have challenged the 'validity of a number of provisions of the enactments in question and, in some cases, also of the rules made thereunder.
The impugned provisions are similar in nature, but are not exactly the same.
Therefore, we shall first state in general terms the case of the petitioners and then consider in detail and separately the impugned provisions in each case.
But before we do so, it is necessary to refer to some background history of the legislation under consideration in these cases.
In the year 1958 this Court had to consider the validity of certain provisions of three Acts: (1) The Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act, (Bihar Act II of 1956); (2) the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (U. P. Act 1 of 1956); and (3) the Central Provinces and Berar Animal Preservation Act, 1949 (C. P. and Berar Act LII of 1949).
The Bihar Act put a total ban on the slaughter of all 613 categories of animals of the species of bovine cattle.
The U. P. Act put a total ban on the slaughter of cows and her progeny which included bulls, bullocks, heifers and calves.
The C. P. and Berar Act placed a total ban on the slaughter of cows, male or female calves of cows, bulls, bullocks, and heifers, and the slaughter of buffaloes (male or female, adults or calves) was permitted only under a certificate granted by the proper authorities.
These three Acts were enacted in pursuance of the directive principle of State policy contained in article 48 of the Constitution.
The petitioners who challenged the various provisions of the aforesaid Acts in 1958 were engaged in the butcher 's trade and its subsidiary undertakings; they challenged the constitutional validity of the Acts on the ground that they infringed their fundamental rights under articles 14, 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution.
In the decision which this Court gave in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi vs The State, of Bihar (1), it held (i) that a total ban on the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and of she buffaloes, male or female, was quite reasonable and valid; (ii) that a total ban on the slaughter of she buffaloes or breeding bulls, or working bullocks (cattle as well as buffaloes) so long as they were capable of being used as milch or draught cattle was also reasonable and valid; and (iii) that a total ban on slaughter of she buffaloes, bulls and bullocks (cattle or buffalo) after they ceased to be capable of yielding milk or of breeding or working as draught animals was not in the interests of the general public and was invalid.
In the result this Court directed the respondent States not to enforce their respective Acts in so far as they were declared void by it.
This led to some amending or new legislation, and we are concerned in these three cases with the provisions of these amending or new Acts and the rules made thereunder.
In Bihar (Writ Petition No. 15 of 1959) the impugned Act is called the Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals (1) ; 78 614 (Amendment) Act, 1959 which received the assent of the Governor on January 13, 1959.
in Uttar Pradesh (Writ Petition No. 21 of 1959) the impugned Act is called the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter (Amendment) Act, 1958 and in Madhya Pradesh (Writ Petition No ' 14 of 1960) a new Act was passed called the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1959 (Act 18 of 1959) which received the assent of the President on July 24, 1959 and came into force on January 15, 1960.
The rules made there under are called the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Rules, 1959.
The general case of the petitioners, who are several in number in each of the three cases, is that they are citizens of India and carry on their profession and trade of butchers; they allege that the various provisions of the impugned legislation infringe their fundamental rights in that they, for all practical purposes, have put a total ban on the slaughter of she buffaloes, bulls or bullocks, even after such animals have ceased to be useful, and have virtually put an end to their profession and trade.
It is pointed out that the age up to which the animals referred to above cannot be slaughtered (20 or 25 years) has been put so high that the practical effect is that no animals can be slaughtered, and the amending or new legislation has put in other restrictions so arbitrary and unreasonable in nature that in effect they amount to a prohibition or destruction of the petitioner 's right to carry on their trade and profession.
The following allegations quoted from one of the petitions (Writ Petition No. 15 of 1959) give a general idea of the nature of the case which the petitioners have put forward: "That there is good professional authority for the view that even in countries where animal husbandry is organised on a highly progressive and scientific basis, cattle seldom live beyond 15 or 16 years.
That there is also good authority to the effect that even pedigree breeding bulls are usually discarded at the age of 12 or 14 years.
, That in India bulls and bullocks and she buffaloes rarely live even up to the age of 15 years; draught bullocks begin to age after eight years, 615 That the raising of the age limit from 15 to 20 years is arbitrary, unreasonable and against the general public interests and is repugnant to and infringes the, fundamental rights of the, petitioners under Article 19 (1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution.
That section 3 of the amending Act is a mala fide, colourable exercise of power, repugnant to the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 19 (1)(f) and (g).
That this arbitrary raising of the age limit will be against the public interests For the following among ' other reasons: (i) That there will, in fact, be no bulls or bullocks or she buffaloes available for slaughter as few, if any, of such animals survive in India up to the age of 15 years; (ii) that the profession, trade and occupation of millions of Muslims will be permanently and irreparably injured; (iii) that millions of members of the minority communities such as Christians, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Muslims, for whom cattle beef is a staple item of their diet, will be deprived of this diet; (iv) that the menace of the rapidly increasing uneconomic cattle population in such matters as the destruction of crops, being a public nuisance, will be accentuated by this arbitrary age limit, and in effect will ensure that bulls and bullocks cannot be slaughtered; (v) that the menace of the rapidly increasing population of uneconomic cattle to the fodder and other animal food resources of the country will be accentuated.
(vi) that the competition between the rapidly increasing cattle population, a large percentage I of which is uneconomic and useless, add the human population for available land will be accentuated; (vii) that this piece of legislation will ensure the steady increase of useless bulls and bullocks and must react disastrously against any attempt to improve milk production, bullock power or animal husbandry generally." 616 Similar allegations have been made in the other two petitions also.
The correctness of these allegations has been con.
tested on behalf of the respondent States, which through some of their officers have filed affidavits in reply.
We shall presently examine at greater length the averments made in these affidavits, but we may indicate here in broad outline what their general effect is.
In Bihar the age below which the slaughter of she buffaloes, bulls and bullocks is prohibited is 25 years.
The respondent State has taken the plea that the usefulness or longevity of live stock for breeding and other purposes depends to a very great extent on (a) better animal husbandry facilities like feeding and management and (b) control of animal diseases, and as these facilities are now available in a greater measure, the legislature came to the conclusion that a bull or bullock or a she buffalo below 25 years of age continues to remain useful; if a bull, bullock or shebuffalo is permanently incapacitated below that age the impugned provision permits its slaughter and therefore the legislation which is challenged conforms to the decision of this Court and does not violate any fundamental right.
In Uttar Pradesh the age is 20 years as respects bulls or bullocks, with a further restriction to be referred to later.
The reply of the res pondent State is that bulls or bullocks do not become unfit at the age of 12 or 14 years as alleged by the petitioners; on the contrary, they continue to be useful and at no time they become entirely useless.
It is then stated in the affidavit: "As a matter of fact, the age up to which the animals can live and are serviceable depends upon the care and attention they receive and the quality of the grass on which they are grazed. . . . . .According to a high authority the average age of an ox under favourable conditions would be between 15 to 20 years.
Even under conditions prevailing in Uttar Pradesh, bulls can live upto 20 years or more as would appear from an analysis of a survey report of the animal husbandry department.
" 617 On these averments the respondent State contends that the legislation is valid.
In Madhya Pradesh also the age is 20 years.
The Under Secretary to the( State Government in the Agricultural Department ' has made the reply affidavit in which it has been stated inter alia that conditions in Madhya Pradesh are different from conditions in other States.
The affidavit then states: "The State of Madhya Pradesh has a total area of 107,589,000 acres, out of which total cropped area is 43,572,000 acres.
Forest area is 33,443,000 acres, area not available for cultivation is 11,555,000 acres, uncultivated land is 18,405,000 acres and fallow land is 5,834,000 acres.
It will thus be seen that this State has a large forest area and plenty of grass land for pasturage.
As the forests supply the greater part of the fuel needs of the human population, the dung of animals is largely available as manure.
The legislature considered that bulls, bullocks and buffaloes are useful in this State till they are well past twenty years of age and that they should not be slaughtered till they are past that age and are also unfit for work or breeding.
The problem of animals dying of slow starvation or of worthless animals depriving useful animals of fodder needs no consideration in this State.
The agricultural community in the State benefits by the existence of animals as long as they are useful.
" There are also further averments as to the shortage of breeding bulls, working bullocks and she buffaloes in Madhya Pradesh.
On these averments the contention of the respondent State is that the cattle in that State are useful up to the age of 20 years.
We have indicated above in general terms the case of the petitioners and the reply which the respondent States have given.
We proceed now to a detailed consideration of the impugned legislation in each case.
(1) We take up first the Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1959 and the rules made under the main Act of 1955.
Section 3 of the Act as amended reads: "section 3.

Output:
In Mohd. Hanif Quareshi vs The State of Bihar the Supreme Court held that a total ban on the slaughter of bulls, bullocks and she buffaloes after they had ceased to be useful was not in the interests of the general public and was invalid.
Thereafter, the Bihar Legislature passed the Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1958, the Uttar Pradesh Legislature passed the U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter (Amendment) Act, 1958 and the Madhya Pradesh Legislature passed a new Act, the M. P. Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1959.
Section 3 of the Bihar Act prohibited the slaughter of a bull, bullock or she buffalo except when it was over 25 years of age and had become useless.
Rule 3 of the Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Rules, 1960 prescribed that the certificate for slaughtering an animal could be granted only with the concurrence of the Veterinary Officer and the Chairman or Chief Officer of a District Board, Municipality etc., and if the two differed, then according to the decision of the Sub Divisional Animal Husbandary Officer.
Section 3 of the U. P. Act permitted the slaughter of a bull or bullock only if it was over 20 years of age and was permanently unfit.
It further provided that the animal could not be slaughtered within 20 days of the grant of 'a certificate that it was fit to be slaughtered and gave a right of appeal to any person aggrieved by the order granting the certificate.
Section 4(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Act provided that no bull, bullock or buffallo could be slaughtered except upon a certificate issued by the competent authority and section 4(2)(a) provided that no certificate could be issued unless the animal was over 20 years of age and was unfit for work or breeding.
Section 4(3) gave a right of appeal to any person aggrieved by the order of the competent authority.
Section 5 provided that no animal 611 shall be slaughtered within 10 days of the date of the issue of the certificate and where an appeal was preferred against the grant of the certificate, till the time such appeal was disposed of.
The petitioners, who carried on the profession and trade of butchers, contended that the various provisions of the three Acts set out above infringed their fundamental rights by practically putting a total ban on the slaughter of bulls, bullocks and she buffaloes even after the animal had ceased to be useful and thus virtually put an end to their profession and trade.
Held, (i) that the ban on the slaughter of bulls, bullocks and she buffaloes below the age of 20 or 25 years was not a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public and was void.
A bull, bullock or buffalo did not remain useful after 15 years, and whatever little use it may have then was greatly offset by the economic disadvantages of feeding and maintaining unserviceable cattle.
The additional condition that the animal must, apart from being above 20 or 25 years of age, also be unfit was a further unreasonable restriction.
Section 3 of the Bihar Act, section 3 of the U. P. Act and section 4(2)(a) of the M. P. Act were invalid.
(ii) Rule 3 of the Bihar Rules was bad as it imposed dis proportionate restrictions on the rights of the petitioners.
The procedure involved such expenditure of money and time as made the obtaining of the certificate not worthwhile.
(iii) The provisions in the Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh Acts providing that the animal shall not be slaughtered within 20 and10 days respectively of the issue of the certificate and that any person aggrieved by the order of the competent authority, may appeal against it, were likely to hold up the slaughter of the animal for a long time and practically put a total ban on slaughter of bulls, bullocks and buffaloes even after they had ceased to be useful.
These provisions imposed unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights of the petitioners and were void.
Mohd. Hanif Quareshi vs The State of Bihar, [1959] S.C.R. 629, State of Madras vs V. G. Row, ; and The State of Bihar vs Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga, , referred to.