Teja Singh, C.J. - (1.) THE Petitioners who are being tried on a police report under Section 287, Patiala Penal Code have applied to this Court under Section 561, Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings against them. Two things have been urged before me by their counsel: one that the Patiala Penal Code was repealed by Section 6 of Part B States (Laws) Act III of 1951 which came into force on 1 -4 -1951 and consequently the Petitioners could not be held liable for an offence under Section 287 of that Act which they are alleged to have committed on 9 -2 -1953. Second, that the facts alleged by the prosecution do not disclose any offence under any law.
(2.) IN order to be able to appreciate the first objection it is necessary to refer briefly to the history of Penal Legislation in the erstwhile Patiala State. The Patiala Penal Code (Act No. 2 of 1956 Bk.) was promulgated by His Highness the then Maharaja of Patiala State in Poh Sam -vat 1956, i.e. somewhere in the month of December 1899 A.D., Chapter XV of which Section 287 was the part, related to offences concerning religion. The words of Section 287 are: If a person intentionally slaughters or kills a bullock, a stallion, a female cow or a young of a cow, he shall be liable to punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Later on the Indian Penal Code prevalent in the rest of India took the place of the Patiala Penal Code. The exact date of the enforcement of the Penal Code in the State is not known and neither Petitioners' counsel nor Mr. Moti Ram who appeared on behalf of the State was able to place before me the relevant notification or the order of His Highness. Mr. Moti Ram however contended that in spite of the fact that the Indian Penal Code replaced the Patiala Penal Code and there were no sections in the former Code that corresponded to Sections 287, 288 and 289 of the latter Code, the said sections still remained a good law in Patiala. This contention of his receives support from the Notification No. Leg/102 issued by the Legal Remembrancer, Patiala on 26 -6 -2001 samvat corresponding to 11 -10 -1944 A.D. The notification reads as follows: Whereas doubts have arisen with regard to the enforcement of Sections 287, 288 and 289 of the Patiala Penal Code, 1956 B, which make it penal for any person to slaughter cows etc., or to possess, import or sell beef in the State; and whereas it is necessary and expedient to resolve such doubts. Now, therefore, His Highness Shri 108 Maharajadhiraj Mahendra Bahadur, vide order No. 1688/1247 AR 2000, dated 28 -9 -1944/ 13 -6 -2001, has been graciously pleased to command that besides the Indian Penal Code 1860, already in force mutatis mutandis in the State, Sections 287, 288 and 289 of the Patiala Penal Code of 1956 B, have always remained in force in the State since they were promulgated, and they were later. amended, vide Judicial Secretary's notification published in the Patiala Government Gazette dated the 31st Bhadon, 1977 B. His Highness Shri 108 Maharajadhiraj Mahendra Bahadur has been further pleased to command that with the exception of the three sections referred to above, the whole of the Patiala Penal Code, 1956 B. shall be deemed to be repealed. Section 6 of the Part B States (Laws) Act lays down that if immediately before the appointed day, there is in force in any Part B State any law corresponding to any of the Acts or Ordinances now extended to that State, that law shall, save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, stand repealed. There is a proviso attached to this section which saves the previous operation of any law repealed by the operative part of the section and rights, privileges acquired etc. under the repealed law, but we are not concerned with it here. All that has to be decided is whether the three sections of the Patiala Penal Code which according to the command of His Highness the Maharaja of Patiala referred to in the above mentioned Legal Remembrance's notification remained in force in Patiala all along, can be regarded as a law corresponding to the Indian Penal Code which has now been enforced in the Union by the Part B States (Laws) Act. Mr. Karam Singh counsel for the Petitioners argued that since the Indian Penal Code dealt with all kinds of general offences and the offences referred to in Sections 287, 288 and 289 of the Patiala Penal Code were also regarded as offences of that kind, inasmuch as they were included in the Patiala Penal Code, they constituted the law corresponding to Indian Penal Code as much as the Penal Code which replaced the remaining part of the Patiala Penal Code. Mr. Moti Ram on the other hand urged that only that law prevalent in this State should be regarded as the law corresponding to Indian Penal Code which dealt with offences of the same kind as were provided in the Indian Penal Code and in view of the fact that no section of the Indian Penal Code dealt with offences relating to killing or slaughtering of bulls, cows or selling of beef etc. the said sections of the Patiala Penal Code are not hit by the operative part of Section 6 of the Part E States (Laws) Act.
(3.) IT was conceded by Mr. Karam Singh that all laws dealing with offences cannot be regarded as laws corresponding to the Penal Code, but he urged that the three sections of the Patiala Penal Code constituted a law corresponding to the Indian Penal Code because they dealt with offences relating to religion and Chapter 15 of the Indian Penal Code also made certain offences relating to religion punishable. Now Chapter 15 of the Indian Penal Code was made of five sections namely Sections 295 to 298. They related to the following offences: Section 295: Injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class. Section 295A: Deliberate and malicious acts ltended to outrage religious feelings of any lass by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. Section 296: Disturbing religious assembly. Section 297: Trespassing on burial places etc. Section 298: Uttering words etc. with deli - berate intent to wound religious feelings. There is no doubt that these offences were described as offences relating to religion but none of them deals with the killing or slaughtering of cows etc. In the circumstances I am of opinion that Sections 287 to 289, Patiala Penal Code cannot be -' 1 characterized as the law corresponding to the offences mentioned in Chapter 15 of the Indian Penal Code.;