Criminal Revision No.1444 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1444 of 2000 Date of Decision 13.05.2010 Aamin son of Gafrudin ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Ms.Ranjana Salaria, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 28.11.2000, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 07/08.04.1999 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh, convicting and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act (herin referred as 'the Act') for contravening the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. The prosecution story in brief is that on 14.12.1996, when Head Constable Siri Chand alongwith other police officials was present at Kherla By Pass on patrolling, he received a secret information that accused is in the habit of slaughtering the cows and could be arrested red handed while slaughtering the cows. The ruqa was sent to the police station. When the raid was conducted, the accused was found cleaning the cow skins and after seeing the police party, he succeeded in running away from the spot leaving Criminal Revision No.1444 of 2000 2 behind cow skin, axe, wooden block, one knife which were taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo vide memo Ex.PW2/A. In this regard, written intimation was sent to police station on the basis of which FIR was registered and the case was investigated. Completion of investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The accused was charged, tried and ultimately convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also failed. Heard. Sufficient evidence has been led in order to establish the charge against the petitioner. The evidence, on the basis of which findings of fact have been returned by the Courts below, appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Having perused the records of the case, it transpires that the offence was committed in the year 1996. He has already suffered a lot of agony due to the protracted proceedings in the Courts and has already undergone some period of the substantive sentence. Thus, it would be in the fitness of things to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to six months. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 13.05.2010. mamta-II