Criminal Revision No.418 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.418 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:May 13, 2010 Farooq ...........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Sarfaj Hussain Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Subhra Singh,Deputy Advocate General,Haryana ** Sabina, J. Petitioner-Farooq was convicted for an offence under Section 3/8 of the Caw Slaughter Act (`the Act' for short) by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad vide judgment dated 25.8.2009. Vide order dated 28.8.2009, accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 3/8 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge,Faridabad . vide judgment dated 13.1.2010. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. Criminal Revision No.418 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, are reproduced here in below:- “2.On 2nd February, 2000 a police party was present at Silakhari Mod, Dhuj, where accused reached while driving a tractor and during the search of the tractor trolley thirty heads, One hundred twenty paws and part of body along with meat were recovered from the possession of the accused and therefore accused was apprehended as such. The other two accused who were sitting on the mudguard of the tractor had succeeded in running away from the spot. Head Constable Ram Niwas sent a rukka to the polcie station for registration of the case, on the basis of which a formal first information report Ex.PW3/E was registered in the police station. The recovered thirty heads of cows and calves, one hundred twenty paws and the meat was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PA which was signed by the witnesses. The accused was arrested and produced in the court, whereas upon completion of investigations a report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared by Shri Krishan Kumar Sub Inspector, Station House officer, police station Sadar Ballabgarh.” During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Section 3/8 of the Act but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that the fine has already been deposited by the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has undergone four months and one day of actual sentence and is facing the criminal Criminal Revision No.418 of 2010 (O&M) 3 proceedings since the year 2000 . He is the only bread earner of the family and has a large family to look after. As per custody certificate placed on record by the learned State counsel, petitioner has undergone four months and one day of actual sentence as on 10.5.2010 and is not involved in any other case. Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a fit case where the sentence qua imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Hence, the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 3/8 of the Act is maintained. However, the sentence qua the imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sabina) Judge May 13, 2010 arya