Crl. Rev. No. 691 of 2005 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Rev. No. 691 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision:- 2.2.2011 Sadru & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- None for the petitioners. Mr. Shekhar Mudgal, AAG, Haryana Gurdev Singh, J (oral) This criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners/accused- Sadru and Sajid against the judgment dated 21.3.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide which he dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment dated 25.1.2003 and order dated 27.1.2003 convicting them for the offences under Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of `300/- each and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.5.1996 a secret information was received by Sh. Bhagwan ASI that the accused slaughter the cows in their house situated in Village Dhauj and sell the beef and Crl. Rev. No. 691 of 2005 (O&M) -2- preserve the skin of those cows and in case raid was conducted such skins and meat can be recovered from their possession. On the receipt of that information the ASI sent his ruqqa Ex.PW4/A to the police station, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW4/C was recorded under Section 3/8 of the Act. Thereafter, he accompanied with Rajinder Singh ASI PW1 and another police official conducted a raid at the house/godown of the accused. On search 20 skins and 10 Kgs of meat was recovered, which were taken in possession vide memo Ex.PW1/A. The ASI prepared rough site plan Ex.PW4/D of the place of the recovery with correct marginal records. On the same day this meat and skin were produced before Dr. Om Parkash, Veterinary Surgeon PW3, who after examination reported, vide his report PW3/A, that this meat (beef) was of the cows and the skins were also that of the cows. After the completion of investigation the challan was put in before JMIC Faridabad, who charged the accused for the offence under Section 3/8 of the Act. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove their guilt the prosecution examined Rajinder Singh ASI PW1, Ravinder Kumar constable PW2, Dr. Om Parkash veterinary surgeon PW3 and Shri Bhagwan ASI PW4. After the close of the evidence by the prosecution, accused were examined by the trial Court and their statements were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence were put to them in order to enable them to explain the same. They denied those circumstances and pleaded their innocence and false implication. They were called upon to enter on their defence, but they did not produce any evidence in their Crl. Rev. No. 691 of 2005 (O&M) -3- defence. After going through the evidence so produced on the record and hearing learned Assistant P.P for the State and learned defence counsel for the accused, the trial Court convicted and sentenced them, as aforesaid. I have heard learned State counsel. The accused were charged for the offence under Section 8 of the Act for having contravened Section 3. Section 3 imposes a prohibition on the slaughter of the cow. It is neither the case of the prosecution nor any evidence was produced that the accused were slaughtering the cows. According to the prosecution 10 Kgs of meat and 20 skins of cows were recovered from the premises of the accused. The possession of any such meat or skin of cows has not been made punishable by the Act. The prohibition, if any, is regarding the sale of beef. According to Section 5 of the Act, no person shall sell or offer for sale or cause to be sold beef or beef-products in any form except for such medical purposes as may be prescribed. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused were keeping beef in their possession for the purposes of sale. From the recovery of beef and the skin of the cows, it cannot be inferred that the cows were slaughtered by the accused themselves. No such evidence was produced by the prosecution from which that fact can be inferred or presumed. It is also to be noted that it was never reported by Dr. Om Parkash Veterinary Surgeon in his report Ex.PW3/K that it was fresh meat or that the same was of the cow slaughtered by a human being nor he mentioned in his report that the skin had been removed after slaughtering the cows and not after their natural death. In these circumstances, the conviction and sentence of the Crl. Rev. No. 691 of 2005 (O&M) -4- accused so recorded by the trial Court and maintained by the appellate Court cannot be sustained. The revision petition is accepted accordingly and the petitioners/accused are acquitted of the offence under Section 8 of the Act. The fine, if already deposited, be refunded to them. Records be returned forthwith. February 2, 2011 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge