Criminal Revision No.775 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.775 of 2011 Date of Decision : 29th August, 2011 Samma & others .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent. * * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Accused Samma, Chainta @ Ayub and Janu having been convicted by both the courts below have filed the instant criminal revision petition. Petitioners were tried for offence under Section 3/8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (in short 'Act'). Learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hathin vide judgment and order dated 14.07.2009 held all the three accused guilty under Section 3/8 of the Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Appeal preferred by the convicts has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal vide judgment dated 11.03.2011. Feeling aggrieved, convicts have filed the instant revision petition. Custody certificates of the petitioners filed today in court by State counsel are taken on record. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Both the courts below have analyzed the evidence led by the Criminal Revision No.775 of 2011 -2- prosecution and have come to concurrent finding that guilt of the petitioners is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The said finding does not warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction because the said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Even counsel for the petitioners could not raise any meaningful argument to assail conviction of the petitioners. Accordingly, conviction of petitioners is affirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that petitioner No.1 has already remained in custody for 5 months 21 days, whereas petitioners No.2 and 3 have already remained in custody for 5 months 17 days each and, therefore, while reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone, sentence of fine may be enhanced. The prayer has been opposed by learned State counsel by stating that no lenient view is called for in the matter of sentence. I have carefully considered the matter. The occurrence took place on 20.01.2000 i.e. more than 11 years ago. Petitioners have faced the agony of trial including appeal and revision, for more than 11 years. Keeping in view all the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that ends of the justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year while maintaining the sentence of fine and the sentence of imprisonment in default thereof as awarded by the Courts below. It is ordered accordingly. With reduction in sentence as aforesaid, the instant criminal revision stands disposed of accordingly. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 29th August, 2011 'raj'