Lal Singh vs The State

Shamsher Bahadur, J.—The petitioner Lal Singh who is the consolidation Patwari was tried summarily by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Muktsar for an offence under sub-section (3) of section 4 of the East Punjab Agricultural Pests, Diseases and Noxious Weeds Act, 1949.

The gravamen of the charge against the petitioner was that he was absent from the village on 26th of August, 1962 when it was struck by a locust invasion and the destruction of "happoes" was taking place. Mr. Harbhagwan Singh for the petitioner, says that the petitioner had gone to his home village on leave. Some support is lent to this contention by the gist of the offence which is stated in the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The offence of the petitioner is said to have been :

The accused has taken no interest in locust duty and did not co-operate with the Sector Officer and he was also not present in the village at the time of destruction of happoes.

The date of commission of the offence on the top of the order is mentioned to be 26th August, 1962, and in calumn No. 11 it is stated that the accused had confessed his guilt. Under the column of "final order", a sum of Rs. 25/.- has been imposed as fine on the petitioner by the order which was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 13th September, 1962.

It would be well to reproduce the provisions of section 4 which the petitioner is said to had transgressed. Some provisions in it were inserted by an amendment made in the Act in pursuance of Punjab Act II of 1951, The amended section reads as under :

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in the event of any area being invaded, or in danger of an invasion, by locusts, the Collector of the district or other; officers authorized by him in this be half may call upon any male person not below the age of 14 years resident in the district to render all possible assistance in carrying out preventive or remedial measures and in the destruction of locusts :

Provided as follows :

(i) * * * *

(ii) it shall not be necessary to notify every person individually for his services, and a proclamation by beat of drum or other customary mode in the village or locality.

(3) Any person who fails to render the assistance required of him under sub-section (2) shall, on conviction by a Magistrate, be punishable with fine which may extend to fifty rupees or in default to simple imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten days....

No doubt, it did not devolve on the prosecution to show that the petitioner was informed about the locust invasion, and it may be assumed in favour of the prosecution that the proclamation was duly made. It still, however, remains to be determined whether the petitioner on account of his admitted absence from the village could be bound by an obligation which it was physically impossible for him to perform. It is not shown that the petitioner was informed about the locust invasion in the village where he was residing or it was possible for him to have reached the village where the invasion took place and whether on account of his absence from the village it was still his duty to co-operate with the concerned authorities. It is no doubt true that the petitioner is stated to have confessed his guilt. It may, however, well be asked that when he was absent from the village what possible offence he could commit ? He is stated to have taken no interest in locust duty and to have failed to co-operate with the Sector Officer, He could not conceivably be committing these offences when he was not present in the village at all. In spite of the confession, therefore, I feel constrained to allow this petition for revision and set aside the order of conviction and the sentence of fine imposed on the petitioner.