JUDGMENT V.D. Bhargava, J. - This is an appeal on behalf of the State against four persons, Nur Bux, Babu, Sabir and Mohammad Bux, who had all been charged u/s 4 of the UP Prevention of Cow. Slaughter Act of 1956. They had all been convicted by the Magistrate and Nur Bux, Babu and Mohammad Bux were sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment, while Sabir, who is a lad of about 12 years was let off after admonition under the UP First Offenders Probation Act. 2. The accused are said to have slaughtered two bullocks whose ages according to the veterinary doctor were 4 years and 6 years. So far as the evidence on the record is concerned, we do not think that it can be challenged. It was believed by both the courts below. The trial court was of the opinion that since the bullocks were young and they had not outlived their utility as draught animals, the accused could be convicted under the said Act, inspite of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court. 3. After the conviction there was an appeal before the Session Judge of Hamirpur, who came to the conclusion that the Act as regards bullocks had been declared void and unconstitutional. Therefore, no distinction could be made on that ground and therefore, the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Against their acquittal the present Government appeal has been filed and it has been contended that both the courts below had entirely ignored the amendments made by the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter (Amendment) Ordinance (Ordinance II) of 1958, which had been published in the UP Government Gazette dated June 13, 1958. This slaughter took place on June 29, 1958 and therefore, the amending ordinance had come into force. Originally as Section 3 stood, is was as follows: 3. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or any usage or custom to the contrary no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter any cow in any place in the UP. "Cow" had been defined to include a bull, bullock, heifer, or calf. 4. According to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mahd. "Cow" had been defined to include a bull, bullock, heifer, or calf. 4. According to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mahd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar the UP Act was defective as regards bulls and bullocks and the reasons given by their Lordships was as follows: As regards UP Act we uphold and declare, for the reasons already stated that it is constitutionally valid in so far as it prohibits the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows, male and female, but we hold that in so far as it purports to totally prohibit the slaughter of breeding bulls and working bullocks without prescribing any test or requirement as to their age or usefulness, it offends against Article 19(1)(g) and is to that extent void. 5. From the above quotation it will appear that this Act as regards bulls and bullocks was declared void on the ground that there was no test as to which bullocks could be slaughtered and which could not be slaughtered. There could be no law prohibiting that no bull or bullocks could be slaughtered. This decision was given by their Lordships of the Supreme Court on April 23, 1958. It appears that the Legislature was not sitting at that time and therefore, the Governor of the Uttar Pradesh promulgated the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter (Amendment) Ordinarce, II of 1958. It was published, as already mentioned, in the UP Government Gazette of June 13, 1956. Inter alia, it amended Section 3 of the UP Act and instead of the original section, which we have already quoted, it substituted a new section which reads as follows: 3. (1) Except as hereinafter provided, no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered, or offer or cause to t e offered for slaughter-- (a) a cow or (b) a bull or bullock, unless he has obtained in respect thereof a certificate in writing, from the competent authority of the area in which the bull or bullock is to be slaughtered, certifying that it is fit for slaughter, in any place in the Uttar Pradesh; anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or any usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding. (2) No bull or bullock, in respect of which a certificate has been issued Under Sub-section (1)(b) shall be slaughtered in any place other than the place indicated in the certificate. (3) A certificate Under Sub-section (1)(b) shall be issued by the competent authority, only after it has, for reasons to be recorded in writing certified that the bull or bullock-- (a) is over the age of 15 years, or (b) has permanently become unfit for purpose of draught or any kind of agricultural operation or for the purpose of breeding. (4) Any person aggrieved by the order of the competent authority refussing to issue a certificate under this section, may, within 15 days from the date of the order, appeal against it to the State Government and the State Government may pass such orders thereon as it may deem fit. (5) The State. Government may at any time for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of the action taken under this section, call for and examine the record of any case and may pass such orders as it may deem it, (6) Subject to the provisions herein contained, any action taken under this section, shall be final and conclusive and shall not be called in question. 6. After the amendment of this section of the original UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act the position has changed. The defect with which Section 3 originally suffered as regards bulls and bullocks has been removed by this amendment. It has now been laid down as to which bullocks and bulls could be slaughtered If a bull or bullock is either over the age of 15 years or it becomes permanently unfit for purpose of draught or any kind of agricultural operation or for the purpose of breeding that bull or bullock alone could be slaughtered and not a bullock of four years or six years of age. Those bulls and bullocks which are unfit for use can also be slaughtered only when a certificate has been obtained from the competent authority and not otherwise. 7. The permission from the competent authority could also not be said to depend entirely on the sweet will of the competent authority. There is an appeal provided against the order of the competent authority if he refuses to issue the required certificates. 7. The permission from the competent authority could also not be said to depend entirely on the sweet will of the competent authority. There is an appeal provided against the order of the competent authority if he refuses to issue the required certificates. Under the circumstances we do not think that now it can be said that Section 3, as it stands now, is either void or constitutionally defective. We do not think, therefore, that the learned Sessions Judge was justified in acquitting the accused. We, therefore, allow the Government appeal and set aside the order of acquittal against the Respondents and restore that of the trial court. 8. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has argued on the question of sentence and has urged that possibly the Respondents were under a misapprehension about the law and therefore, instead of sending them to jail after such a long time the sentence of imprisonment may be converted into one of fine. Considering the circumstances of the case we think that ends of justice would be met if instead of sentencing them to imprisonment we impose a fine of Rs. 50/-, each in default one month's rigorous imprisonment, on Nur Bux, Babu and Mohammad Bux. Sabir has been given the benefit of the UP First Offenders Probation Act. We affirm the same. 9. The fine shall be paid within two months from today.