B.K. Patra, J.

1. The Petitioner was prosecuted on a charge under Section 11(1)(c) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a week.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.9.1966 the cow belonging to the complainant on seeing a jackal on the road got frightened and entered into the field of the Petitioner and that the latter assaulted the cow at several places on its person by means of a Charadi Badi (a stick, one end of which is flat, used generally to clear grass), notwithstanding the complainants protest that the cow was pregnant and should not be beaten. On being so beaten, the cow ran and fen into a muddy ditch and it was alleged that the Petitioner caught hold of the tail of the cow and dealt several other blows with Charadi Badi thereby causing severe injuries on the knee and thigh of the right leg and also on the left chest of the cow. This incident was spoken to by p.ws. 1 to 3. P.w. 4, the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon who examined the cow on 23-9-1966 found that it was in an advanced stage of pregnancy and that it had the following injuries:

(1) The tail had sprain with swelling at a distance of 1 3 from the base.

(2) Two distinct abrasions with swelling over the left chest wan.

(3) The right hoot joint was swollen with sprain at the right hind leg.

3. The Petitioner denied having committed the offence, and examined two witnesses in defence who stated that the Petitioner did not heat the cow but drove it out. The learned Magistrate however accepted the prosecution evidence that the Petitioner had assaulted the cow in the manner alleged by the prosecution and convicted him.

4. The only contention put forward on behalf of the Petitioner by Mr. Singh is that in the absence of a finding by the learned Magistrate that the cow was beaten in such a manner as to cause it unnecessary pain or Buffering, the conviction is not maintainable. Section 11(1) in so far as is material may be quoted:

11. (1) Hany person:

(a) beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives, over-loads, tortures or otherwise, treats any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering or causes or, being the owner permits, any animal to be so treated; or

x x x

he shall be punishable, in the case of a first offence, with fine 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 may extend to one hundred rupees, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with both.

x x x

From the manner in which the Sub-section is worded, it appears to me that beating an animal as such is not punishable under Section 11(1) of the Act and that to constitute the offence under this Sub-section, it must be shown that the beating etc. was such as to subject the animal to unnecessary pain or suffering. If the clause "or otherwise treats any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering" is construed to be a clause independent of what has preceded it, then the Sub-section would make no meaning because in that case there will be a total absence of the object which is beaten, kicked, etc. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner is therefore correct in his submission that the expression "so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering" governs all the acts mentioned before this expression in Sub-section (1).

I am, however, unable to accept the Petitioners contention that the conviction has to be set aside merely because the learned Magistrate has not expressly stated that the beating of the anima), which he has believed, caused the animal unnecessary pain or Buffering. Whether in any given case the beating has Section 11(1) in so far as is material may be caused unnecessary pain or suffering must necessarily be a matter of inference depending on the proved facts and circumstances in that case. If on the basis of the proved facts, a witness is entitled to draw inference and speak about it in Court, there appears to be no reason why the Court itself cannot draw the necessary inference from the proved facts. Having regard to the various injuries found on the person of the cow about which p.w. 4 has testified and further fact that the cow at the time was in an advanced stage of pregnancy, the inference appears to be irresistible that the several injuries caused to the cow must have caused pain and suffering to it. It is not the prosecution case that this is not the first offence which the Petitioner has committed. In view thereof, there appears to be no sufficient justification in imposing upon him the maximum penalty provided by law.

5. I would accordingly reduce the fine to an amount of Rs. 25/-, in default of payment of which, the Petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for three days. Subject to the reduction in the sentence, the revision petition is dismissed.