IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Revision No. 543 of 1996 Date of Decision: 30.7.2009 Khalil and others. ....... Petitioners through Shri Vikram Singh, Advocate. Versus State of Haryana. ....... Respondent through Shri Ajay Singh Ghangas,Deputy Advocate General. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This revision petition is directed against judgment dated 17.7.1996 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal (hereinafter described as `the appellate Court') by which the conviction of the petitioners as recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,Kaithal (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court') vide judgment dated 12.10.1993 was upheld, but the quantum of sentence was reduced. The petitioners were challaned for having committed an offence punishable under Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act,1955, as applicable to the State of Haryana (for short, `the Act') as they were allegedly taking four cows for slaughtering. Crl.Revision No.543 of 1996 -2- .... The trial Court, after completion of proceedings, held the petitioners guilty of the charge and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal which was disposed of by the appellate Court vide the impugned judgment and while maintaining the conviction, the sentence relating to imprisonment was reduced to six months. Hence, this revision petition. At the out-set, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that he does not wish to advance arguments on the merits of the case for the simple reason that the occurrence is stated to be of the year 1986 and that the petitioners have, by now, faced the agony of criminal proceedings for the last about twenty three years. He contended that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners at this tail end of their life to suffer the sentence of imprisonment, especially when there is only allegation that they were taking the cows for slaughtering and there was no actual slaughtering. He prayed that a lenient view may be taken in these circumstances. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contended that since the petitioners have been found guilty of violating the provisions of the Act, they do not deserve any leniency. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the Crl.Revision No.543 of 1996 -3- .... opinion that the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners deserves to be accepted. The offence was allegedly committed on 8.3.1986 when the petitioners were intercepted by the police while taking four cows for slaughtering. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners are facing criminal proceedings for the last twenty three years and they would have been well advanced in age by now, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners should be reduced to that of already undergone and instead, the amount of fine should be enhanced. For this view, I draw support from the ratio of the law laid down in Kharak Singh and others Versus State of Punjab, 2004(1) RCR (Criminal) 766 (P&H); Sadhu Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 108 (P&H); Moti Sagar and others Versus State of Haryana and another, 2004(3) RCR (Criminal) 519 (P&H) and Darshan Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 212 (P&H). Consequently, the revision petition is disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The conviction of the petitioners shall remain intact; (ii) the sentence of imprisonment awarded to them is reduced to that of already undergone and rather, the fine imposed upon them is enhanced to Rs.5000/- each which shall include the fine of Rs.1000/- already imposed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court . The enhanced fine shall be Crl.Revision No.543 of 1996 -4- .... deposited by the petitioners within a period of three months from today before the trial Court. (iii) in the event of failure of the petitioners to deposit the fine within the stipulated period , the sentence of imprisonment as awarded by the appellate Court shall automatically stand revived. July 30,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge