# Saddam v. The State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 845
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-06-01
- **Bench:** Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/saddam-v-the-state-of-u-p-42180
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-439-Bailoffence under Section 3 of U.P. Provision
of Cow Slaughter Act 1955-allegations
that applicant found driving vehicle
carrying 82 Bullocks and 30 Cows out of
which 6 Bullocks and 4 Cows found
dead-recovery memo nothing mentioned
by which provision of Section 3 and 5
found violated-Learned Magistrate as
well
as
Session
Judge-instead
of
imparting justice without fear and favorappears to have acted on their personal
feelings-which has no scope in Rule of
Law-entitled for bail-general direction
issued for future action.

Held: Para 10

Judges right from the subordinate courts
till to the highest strata cannot legislate
when
the
legislature
has
provided
punishment of fine under Section 11 of
Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act, how a
Magistrate or Additional Sessions Judge
is rejecting bail application is a matter of
grave concern which casts aspersion
against the control of this Court on the
subordinate courts.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2006 SC 1975; 1993 (1) SCC (Cri) 149;
178 CAR 107 (SC)

## Text

2 All] Saddam V. The State of U.P
845
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.06.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAEED-UZ-ZAMAN SIDDIQI, J.

Bail No. - 3791 of 2012

Saddam

 ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Piyush Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate

Code of Criminal Procedure-439-Bailoffence under Section 3 of U.P. Provision
of Cow Slaughter Act 1955-allegations
that applicant found driving vehicle
carrying 82 Bullocks and 30 Cows out of
which 6 Bullocks and 4 Cows found
dead-recovery memo nothing mentioned
by which provision of Section 3 and 5
found violated-Learned Magistrate as
well
as
Session
Judge-instead
of
imparting justice without fear and favorappears to have acted on their personal
feelings-which has no scope in Rule of
Law-entitled for bail-general direction
issued for future action.

Held: Para 10

Judges right from the subordinate courts
till to the highest strata cannot legislate
when
the
legislature
has
provided
punishment of fine under Section 11 of
Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act, how a
Magistrate or Additional Sessions Judge
is rejecting bail application is a matter of
grave concern which casts aspersion
against the control of this Court on the
subordinate courts.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2006 SC 1975; 1993 (1) SCC (Cri) 149;
178 CAR 107 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saeed-Uz-Zaman
Siddiqi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
accused applicant and learned counsel for
the State and perused the F.I.R. and other
relevant papers filed in support of the bail
application.

2. Counter affidavit filed today is
taken on record. As per FIR, accused
applicant was found driving vehicle in
which 82 bullocks and 30 cows were
loaded, out of which 6 bullocks and 4
cows were dead. There are no allegations
of violation of any of the provisions
contained in U.P. Prevention of Cow
Slaughter Act, 1955. Section 3 prohibits
slaughtering of cow, bull or bullock and
Section 5 prohibits sale of beef. Both
these prohibitions do not find to have
been voilated, as nothing is mentioned in
the
recovery
memo.
The
learned
Magistrate
and
Learned
Additional
Sessions Judge did not bother to go
through the recovery memo which recites
that none of the accused were found at the
place of recovery nor any weapon of
slaughtering has been recovered.

3. Now, allegations remains for the
offence punishable under Section 11 of
Animal Cruelty Act, which reads as
follows:

"If any person.......(d) conveys or
carries, whether in or upon any vehicle
or not, animal in such a manner or
position as to subject it to unnecessary
pain or suffering; or (e) keeps or
confines any animal in any cage or other
receptacle which does not measure
sufficiently in in height, length and
breadth
to
permit
the
animal
a
reasonable opportunity for movement; or
846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

he shall be punishable (in the case
of a first offence, with fine which shall
not be less than ten rupees but which
may extend to fifty rupees and in the
case of a second or subsequent offence
committed within three years of the
previous offence, with fine which shall
not be less than twenty five rupees but
which may extend, to one hundred
rupees or with imprisonment for a term
which may extend, to three months, or
with both.

4. Learned Sessions Judge has
rejected the bail application without
observing that the allegations do not relate
to violation of any of the provisions of
U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act,
1955, nor he has bothered to behave in a
humane manner and has played recklessly
with the rights guaranteed to a human
being; what to think about Article 21 of
the Constitution of India, by ignoring the
repeated dictums laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court. What pains this
Court is that the offence, if any, is
bailable one. India has not yet been
declared to be a police State. Rule of law
is the way of life and the courts are bound
to implement "Rule of Law".

5. Considering the facts and
circumstances and without expressing any
view on the merits of the case, let the
accused applicant be released on bail in
Case Crime No.135/2012 under Section
3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act & Section 11 of
Animal Cruelty Act, PS Hasanganj,
District Unnao, on his furnishing a
personal bond and two local and reliable
sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction
of
the
court/Magistrate
concerned.

6. It appears that learned Additional
Sessions Judge has been swayed by
sentimental arguments placed before him
and he has forgotten his basic duty to
administer law as it is. Either the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has involved
his own sentiments or has attempted to
avoid his criticism for, in case the bail
application is allowed, he would face
criticism from any section of bar
members. Criticism is part of our system
and if the Judge succumbs to criticism, he
should reconsider his virtues, his moral
excellence, his efficacy, his inherent
power and the practice of duty. The pious
seat of justice has no religion. A Judge
has to abide by his constitutional
obligations and laws framed thereunder.
A Judge should maintain his integrity and
virginity under all circumstances.

"Recently in Gurdev Kaur & others
V. Kaki & others, AIR 2006 SC 1975 ,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has given a note
of caution to such orders which are
stigmatic on the justice delivery system in
the mind of the public at large and has
held; "Judges must administer law
according to the provisions of law. It is
the bounden duty of judges to discern
legislative intention in the process of
adjudication.
Justice
administered
according to individual's whim, desire,
inclination and notion of justice would
lead to confusion, disorder and chaos ."

7. In Punjab National Bank v.
Surendra Prasad Sinha, 1993 Supp. (1)
SCC (Cri) 149 the Hon'ble Apex Court
has held as under:

"The judicial process should not be
an instrument of oppression or needless
harassment. There lies responsibility and
duty on the Magistracy to find whether
2 All] Ram Sudhar Prasad V. The State of U.P and others
847
the concerned accused should be legally
responsible for the offence charged for."

It was further held:

"Vindication of majesty of justice
and maintenance of law and order in the
society are the prime objects of criminal
justice but it would not be the means to
wreak personal vengeance."

8. People, by and large are rapidly
loosing confidence in the criminal justice
system, particularly the subordinate courts
have opted tendency to play safe by
overlooking the will of the people;
underneath there is a feeling that the
judicial officers manning the subordinate
courts are fearful and not bold enough to
deliver justice fearlessly which is soul of
judicial system in India. This particular
aspect is eroding the majesty of the courts
which is suicidal for the national fabric.
Passing orders in a mechanical manner
like
administrative
officers
is
not
expected from a Judge. A Judge has to
keep his fingers on the pulse of the
society.

9. In Sanjay Gandhi v. Union of
India & ors. reported in 178 CAR 107
(SC), Hon'ble Apex Court has held as
under:

"Since a fair trial is not a limping
hearing, we view with grave concern any
judicial insouciance which lengthens
litigation to limit of exasperation."

10.

Judges
right
from
the
subordinate courts till to the highest strata
cannot legislate when the legislature has
provided punishment of fine under
Section 11 of Prevention of Animal
Cruelty Act, how a Magistrate or
Additional Sessions Judge is rejecting bail
application is a matter of grave concern
which casts aspersion against the control
of this Court on the subordinate courts.

11. The Registrar General is directed
to circulate copy of this order to all the
Sessions Judge/C.J.Ms so that justice
should be dispensed with strictly in
accordance with law, in such a fashion
that a message may be transmitted to the
society at large that there is no
deterioration in the judicial system.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.07.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3850 of 2003

Ram Sudhar Prasad

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jitendra Narain Rai

Counsel for the Respondents
C.S.C.

U.P.
Temporary
Govt.
Servant
(termination of Service) Rules 1975termination order-of petitioner a daily
wager on post of Mali-after substantive
vacancy-service regularized-termination
order
questioned-on
ground
after
regularization Temporary Rule 1975 has
no application-held-misconceived-unless
service confirmed status would be as
temporary
employee-no
force
on
technical plea-petition dismissed.

Held: Para 9

By
order
dated
04.09.1987
the
appointment of the petitioner has only