JUDGMENT Amar Saran, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA. This application has been filed for quashing criminal proceedings against 64 applicants in case No. 3351 of 1998 : State v. Allah Noor and Ors., arising out of case crime No. 728 of 1997, under Sections 3/5A/8 of the UP, Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Section 3/11/38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, as also Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 429 and 120B IPC, relating to P.S. GRP, Gorakhpur, District Gorakhpur.
2. The allegations in the FIR were that 1225 cattle were being transported in 61 bogies of a goods train on 22.10.1997 which were seized at Gorakhpur Railway Station by G.R.P., Gorakhpur It is alleged that all the 64 accused were present in the bogies to look after the cattle and they were taking the cattle to Bihar for the purpose of slaughtering them, after preparing forged documents regarding permits etc. It is further clearly stated in the FIR that the papers, which were recovered from the' applicants, showed that the cattle had been purchased from Jagran Samiti Pashu Mela, Wamomalgarh, Jodhpur, Rajasthan and they were being taken to Metha Shahr in Motihari in Bihar.
3. The case of the applicants was that the applicants had purchase the cattle from Rajasthan as per the docurnents that were seized from them and they were taking them for sale to the cattle market at Mohihari in Bihar for agricultural purposes.
4. There is no refutation of this specific allegation, paragraph 6 of the affidavit, by any counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, although notice was issued to the State to file a counter affidavit as far back as 4.10.99 It is for the prosecution to show that there was an attempt to slaughter the animals as opposed to mere intention or preparation to slaughter the animals, which does not amount to an offence under criminal law. The prosecution case has to stand on its own legs and an accused can not be called upon to dispel or disprove allegations of any such intention on his part
5. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the cattle were being taken for the purpose of slaughtering them in Bihar, it is quite clear that the Act cannot apply to the case of the applicants. The preamble of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act clearly states that it has been enacted "to prohibit and prevent the slaughter of cow and its progeny in Uttar Pradesh". Likewise, Section 3 of the Act prohibits the slaughter by any person of a cow of a bull or bullock without the certificate of a competent authority "in any place in Uttar Pradesh" Similarly, Section 5A of the Act makes the transport of a cow, bull or bullock, whose slaughter is prohibited in Uttar Pradesh, "from any place within the State to any place outside the State Pashushahla". In this case, admittedly, the prosecution case was that the cows had been purchased in Rajasthan and they were being transported by train to Bihar for the purpose of slaughter. Therefore, the purchase of the cattle from any place in Uttar Pradesh for the purpose of slaughter outside Uttar Pradesh is ruled out on the own allegations of the prosecution.
6. Moreover, it is apparent, in this case the cattle were being carried in a goods train. It is possible to conceive that if the cattle were being transported by truck, they could be unloaded anywhere in the journey in Uttar Pradesh for the purpose of slaughter. But in this case the cattle in question had been booked" from one point in Rajasthan and they were being taken to Bihar in a goods train, in which case certainly they were not to be unloaded in Uttar Pradesh. An offence under the Cow Slaughter Act is not an offence in rem, like an offence of murder, theft, rape or dacoity, which are common law offences which apply to all the mankind. These offences are creatures of special enactments passed by different States, whereby cow slaughter may be prohibited in one State and may be permissible in another State or another country. It does appear that the action of seizing of the cows by stopping the train at Gorakhpur, was the result more of sentiments and emotions and the action was not supported by law. In this connection it has been aptly stated by the apex court in Mohd. Faruk v. State of M.P. and Ors.: , at paragraph 11:
"But a prohibition imposed on the exercise of a fundamental right to carry on an occupation, trade or business will not be regarded as reasonable, if it is imposed not in the interest of the general public, but merely to respect the susceptibilities and sentiments of a Section of the people whose way of life, belief or thought is not the same as that of the claimant." (Emphasis added)
7. It was also submitted by the applicant's counsel that all the seized cattle have been released in favour of the applicants by earlier order passed by this court in other proceedings.
8. So far as the other Sections mentioned in the FIR are concerned, there is nothing to show that those offences of cheating, or forgery or maiming of cattle in any manner are involved in this case. Likewise if during transport in a rail bogie some cattle receive minor injuries, that is an event in the ordinary course of transport and from that it cannot be inferred that cruelty was intended against the animals so as to bring the case within the purview of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act
9. In my view these Sections appear to have been inserted by way of padding, again for emotional reasons, with an objective that in case the applicants could not come within the purview of the Cow Slaughter Act, which are the main offences for which they have charged, they could in some manner be trapped under these Sections. But law is not meant to be a trap for the unwary.
10. In this view of the matter, I think that allowing the criminal proceedings in question to continue against the applicants would amount to gross abuse of the process of the court and they are hereby quashed.
11. The application is allowed.