IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT KALIM VS. STATE OF RAJ. AND ANR. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No.1409 OF 2008 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated November 3, 2008 of Addl. Sessions Bandikui (Distt. Dausa) in Criminal Appeal No.36 of 2008 whereby the appeal of the accused appellant against the judgment of Judicial Magistrate dated October 3, 2008 whereby he convicted the accused appellant of the offence under section 5/8 read with section 6 of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export ) Act, 1995 and sentenced him for eight months RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/- In default of fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Date of Order : January 7 , 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Deendayal Khandelwal & Shailendra Khandelwal for the petitioner. Mr. S.N.Kumawat, Addl. Advocate General & R.S. Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by petitioner Kalim, against the order dated November 3, 2008 of Addl. Sessions Bandikui (Distt. Dausa) in Criminal Appeal No.36 of 2008 whereby the appeal of the accused appellant against the judgment of Judicial Magistrate dated October 3, 2008 whereby he convicted the accused appellant of the offence under section 5/8 read with section 6 of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export ) Act, 1995 and sentenced him for eight months RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the accused was caught raid handed carrying 15-20 cow-calf's for slaughtering in the Canter vehicle on Bypass Dausa National Highway No.11. The accused was driver of the said Canter and the other accused who were 4-5 in number ran away when the raiding party of police personnel caught the Canter Vehicle. The police station Sikandara filed FIR and investigation commenced. After investigation the police filed challan against the accused petitioner and other persons on October 3, 2008. The accused petitioner voluntarily confessed the guilt On the date when the challan was filed and submitted a separate application accepting the guilt. The Judicial Magistrate vide judgment dated October 3, 2008 convicted the accused appellant of the offence under section 5/8 read with section 6 of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export ) Act, 1995 and sentenced him for eight months RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment. The accused petitioner filed appeal against the said order and vide order dated November 3, 2008 the Addl. Sessions Judge Bandikui rejected the appeal and upheld the judgment of conviction and sentence on account of confession of guilt by the accused petitioner. Hence this revision petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the courts below has not taken lenient view in sentencing the appellant. The appellant has remained in custody for more than four months and he should be released on the sentence already under gone by him taking lenient view. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Bundu Khan and others vs. State of Rajasthan (2001 (1) RCC 619. 4. Mr. S.N. Kumawat, Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that in such a heinous offence, the petitioner should not be given any remission and the Jail authorities be directed not give any remission to the accused petitioner and he be remained in jail for full period of sentence awarded to him. The orders of the courts below are perfectly legal and no interference in the revisional jurisdiction is called for and the revision petition be rejected. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. The petitioner confesssed before the trial court and the trial court looking to his confessiosn sentenced him only for 8 months and fine of Rs. 2,000/-. No leniency is taken in such a heinous offence as submitted by the Additional Advocate General. The Jail authortieis are directed not to give any remission to the petitioner and he will serve the imprisonment for 8 months as sentenced by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. In default of payment of fine he will suffer further imprisonment of one month simple imprisonment. 6. The revision petition is dismissed as indicated above. The accused petitioner shall serve out the remaining sentence without any remission. As the main petition has been rejected the stay application also stands rejected. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/