Judgment Imam, J. 1. The petitioners have been sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment under Sec.153 of the Indian Penal Code. They had originally been convicted under Sections 153 and 298 of the Indian Penal Code and had been sentenced under the former Section to six months rigorous imprisonment and under the latter section to one years rigorous imprisonment. The lower appellate Court, however, acquitted the petitioners of the offence punishable under Sec.298 of the Indian Penal Code and reduced the sentence passed under Sec.153 of the Indian Penal Code from six months to three months rigorous imprisonment. 2. On the facts found there can be no question that on the 25th of May 1950, at 10 a.m., one Jiwachh Sah noticed the petitioners killing a cow in the field of one Sk, Sadique. The animal was observed to have its throat cut and Jiwachh Sah informed the choukidar. When the choukidar arrived, he saw the petitioners cutting the cow to pieces and taking the meat in baskets. There was subsequently a sulehnama, as it is described, whereby the Muslims of the village declared that there would be no such repetition of the incident which had taken place. There was, however, one Mujibur Rahman who stood in the way of this Sulehnama with the result that the petitioners along with Mujibur Rahman were prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 153 and 298 of the Indian Penal Code. By the irony of things Mujibur Rahman was acquitted--the individual who had prevented an amicable settlement of the trouble in the locality. I am, however, not concerned with that matter in the present proceedings. 3. The Sessions Judge in appeal, as I have already said, acquitted the petitioners of the offence punishable under Sec.298 of the Indian Penal Code and so far as the offence punishable under Sec.153 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned definitely found that the act of the petitioners was not malignant or malicious but that it was wanton. On behalf of the petitioners it has been urged that their act was not wanton, and even if it was wanton, the act which they committed was not illegal having regard to the definition of that word in Section 43 of the Indian Penal Code. On behalf of the petitioners it has been urged that their act was not wanton, and even if it was wanton, the act which they committed was not illegal having regard to the definition of that word in Section 43 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, there could be no conviction under Sec.153 of the Indian Penal Code which runs as follows : "Whoever malignantly, or wantonly, by doing anything which is illegal, gives provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting to be committed, shall, if the offence of rioting be committed in consequence of such provocation, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both; and if the offence of rioting be not committed, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both." 4. In my opinion, the act of the petitioners was undoubtedly wanton. The expression "wanton" came to be considered by the Judges of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Emperor V/s. Hussain Bux, 29 All 569. It means recklessly, thoughtlessly without regard for right or consequence. Today, I think it must be recognised that to kill or to sacrifice a cow in the open exposed to the view of the public would cause needless offence to a very large body of persons who inhabit this land. A person who so kills or sacrifices a cow obviously does so recklessly, thoughtlessly and without regard for the sentiment of those who do not approve of such an act. The evidence is clear that in this village the field in which the cow was killed was open at least on three sides exposed to the public view. Having regard to the circumstances prevailing today, of which a Court is justified in taking judicial notice, to kill a cow in such a place is an act which is reckless, thoughtless and without regard for the sentiment of a very large body of persons who inhabit this land. Such conduct, therefore, in my opinion amounts to a wanton act. The question, however, still remains to be considered that even if the act of the petitioners was wanton, whether the act was illegal. Such conduct, therefore, in my opinion amounts to a wanton act. The question, however, still remains to be considered that even if the act of the petitioners was wanton, whether the act was illegal. If it was not illegal, however, wanton, however undesirable, however to be deplored the act may have been, there could be no offence committed under Section. 153 of the Indian Penal Code. The word "illegal" has been denned in Sec. 43 of the Indian Penal Code, which states : "The word "illegal" is applicable to everything which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, or which ground for a civil action: and a person is said to be "legally bound to do" whatever it is illegal in him to omit." The killing of the cow in this particular case certainly did not furnish ground for a civil action. No provision of law has been placed before me which would make the killing of the cow an offence. No provision of law, nor any notification by a lawful authority has been placed before me by which it would appear that the killing of a cow had been prohibited. In such circumstances, it is impossible to hold that the act of the petitioners in this particular case was an illegal act, although it may have been wanton and one which was deplorable. Since it has not been established that the act was illegal, obviously an essential ingredient of the offence punishable under Sec.153 of the Indian Penal Code has not been established in this case. I would accordingly allow the application and set aside the conviction and sentence.