The right to private defense and the absence of mens rea must be considered in interpreting criminal acts, and the protection of livelihood and property is a valid defense under the Act of 1995.

R.S. Chauhan, J.-The accused petitioners have challenged the orders dated 22.02.2005 and 07.06.2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 4 Bharatpur and by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur respectively. By the former order, cognizance for offences under Section 3/8 of the Rajasthan Bowins Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration of Export) Act, 1995 (henceforth to be referred to as ‘the Act of 1995’, for short) was taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 4, Bharatpur. By the latter order, the

former order dated 22.02.2005 was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Bharatpur.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.05.2003, the complainant-respondent lodged a written report at Police Station Kumher, District Bharatpur alleging therein that his cow was grazing in the jungle. While grazing, the cow went into the field of Banay Singh. The accused petitioners, who were working in the field, hit the cow with lathis in order to chase it away. The cow died due to the beatings. On the aforesaid report, the police registered a former FIR, FIR No. 207/03 for offence under Section 429 IPC, and the investigation commenced. After a thorough investigation, the police submitted a negative final report as no case was found to be made out against the accused petitioners. Thereafter, the complainant filed a protest petition and his statement under Section 200 of CrPC and that of his witnesses under Section 202 of CrPC were recorded. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners for offence under Section 3/8 of the Act of 1995. Being aggrieved by the cognizance, the accused petitioners had filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2 Bharatpur, who vide order dated 07.06.2005 dismissed the revision petition. Hence, this petition before this Court.

3. Mr. Dilip Sinsinwar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently argued that in criminal jurisprudence, there is a right of private defense of the property. Once the cattle had entered the field and was destroyed the crop standing in the field, the petitioners, who were working in the field, have a right to chase away the cow in order to protect the standing crop. Therefore, the petitioners have committed no offence under the Act of 1995. Moreover, the object of the Act of 1995 is to protect the animal from the slaughter for the purpose of meat industry. Therefore, the accidental death of the cow is not covered under the provisions of the Act of 1995. Hence, the essential ingredients of the offence are not made out against the accused petitioners. He had further argued that once the police have submitted a negative final report the learned Magistrate was duty bound to give reasons for disagreeing with the negative final report. However the learned Magistrate has assigned no such reason. Hence, the order date 22.02.2005 is illegal.

4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Arun Sharma, has argued that there was sufficient prima facie evidence against the petitioners for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance Therefore, he has supported the impugned order.

5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned public Prosecutor for the State and have perused the impugned orders.

6. The Act of 1995 was enacted with the object of prohibiting the slaughter of cows calves, heifers, bulls of bullocks belonging to these pieces of one cattle as also “to prohibit the export of such animals for the purpose of slaughter and to regulate for other purposes, the temporary migration or export of such a livestock to safeguard the interest of the general public deriving benefit out of them and to vouch save the genuine necessity of the general public that number of these animals in no way deploys”. While interpreting the provisions of the Act, we must keep the object of the Act in mind.

.7. Section 2 (m) defin