Crl. Revision No.540 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.540 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.05.2011 Saleem ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Ms. Monisha Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Preeti Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Accused, by invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court, is assailing the judgment dated 4.11.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ferozepur Jhirka, and judgment dated 4.2.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, whereby accused was found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 3/8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 90 days. The prosecution story is that on 29.8.2005 at about 6.30 p.m., in the area of police station Ferozepur Jhirka accused was found slaughtering the cows and was found in possession of 25 kg beef of freshly slaughtered cow, one knife, one weighing scale, one wooden piece, weights and one rope and was thus thereby committed offence Crl. Revision No.540 of 2011 (O&M) -2- under Sections 3/8, 5/8 of the Act. On the basis of complaint Ex.PW2/A, the present case was registered. Investigation was set into motion. Accused was arrested. The cow beef was taken into police possession and witnesses were made to sign the recovery memo. Site plan was prepared. On the completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Court. Learned trial Court chargesheeted accused under Sections 3/8 and 5/8 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as five witnesses. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded his false implication, however, he did not adduce any defence evidence. Learned counsel has argued that accused was not arrested from the spot. As per prosecution story accused has ran away from the spot. He has further argued that neither the Investigating Officer had appeared in the witness box to prove alleged recovery and site plan nor meat was chemically examined. He has further contended that no public witness was joined from the nearby houses at the time of alleged recovery. Identification of accused for the first time in Court is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty for the offence. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, has vehemently argued that Dr. Amar Singh Solanki PW2 has stated on oath that on physical examination, meat was found of beef containing yellow coloured fat thereon which is present only in beef. She has further argued that since petitioner was found in possession of beef measuring 25 kg, hence it is rightly presumed that he was carrying the beef for the purpose of selling after slaughtering the cow. Therefore, no interference Crl. Revision No.540 of 2011 (O&M) -3- is called for in the findings of the Courts below. This Court in Crl. Revision No. 676 of 2011 decided on 19.4.2011, facts of which were similar to the facts of the present case, has observed as under: - “As per datas available under “Meat and Meat products” expert has opined that different meat shall have different colour and different fat as reproduced in paras 4, 5 and 6 of the revision, which read as under:- Undisputedly, no chemical examination was done on the meat in question to find out as to whether that meat is of beef and was containing fat as per the chart given in para 4, 5 and 6 of the revision petition, which is being reproduced hereunder:- Species Meat Fat Beef Bright to dark red White or cream white Goat Light to dark red Chalk white Pork Grey pink to grey red White Fat Palmeti c Stearic Palme- Toleic Oleic Linolei c Linolen ic Arachi donic Beef 29 20 42 Pork 28 13 3 46 Mutton 25 25 39 5. That in the article “Choosing The Best Cuts of Beef” it is mentioned that the fat around the edges of the beef should be white to ivory. Similarly in the article “How to choose fresh Meat”, regarding beef it is provided as under:- “All fresh beef should be deep in color and appear “juicy” and wet on the butcher's table. Dry, dark red beef has been exposed to the air far too long. “Marbling” is the term used to describe fat funning through the meat. This give the meats its flavour and tenderness. Also, beef fat should be creamy, and not yellow in color.” 6. That the University of Illinois Extension in its article “Sourcing high quality Beef: The Retailers Guide, under the head Color has mentioned as Crl. Revision No.540 of 2011 (O&M) -4- under:- “9) Color-Research has shown that muscle color explains 15 to 23% of the variation in beef palatability. The importance of color is reflected by consumer preference and juiciness. Fresh beef should be cherry red (below) in color. Diet, breed, and animal age affect fat color. Optimum fat color for beef is white.” Learned Assistant Advocate General has not disputed different studies as stated in paras 4, 5 and 6 of the revision. In the opinion of this Court it would be totally unsafe to hold that meat was of beef on seen by naked eye without any chemical examination thereon. Moreover, Dr. Sanjiv Khan PW1 has stated on oath that meat recovered was having yellow fat thereon. While as per Article “Meat and Meat Products” as reproduced hereinbefore, beef must have fat of white or cream colour.” Now coming to the facts of the present case, as per prosecution story, on receipt of secret information, police raided the house of the petitioner, but he absconded from there and one cow skin and cow beef was recovered from the house of the accused/petitioner along with knife, rope, weighing scale etc., which were taken into possession. Admittedly, petitioner was not found slaughtering cow or selling beef nor he was arrested from the spot. Moreover, in this case, Investigating Officer has not stepped into the witness box to prove the alleged recovery and the site plan. It is not disputed fact that the alleged place of recovery is surrounded by several houses, but despite that no independent witness was joined from the nearby houses. Even no chemical examination was done to find out that the meat is of beef. In view of this, it would not be safe to hold that the petitioner is guilty for an offence punishable under Section 3/8 of the Act. Prosecution story Crl. Revision No.540 of 2011 (O&M) -5- does not inspire confidence. In criminal cases, guilt cannot be said to have been proved only on the basis of presumption or assumption. Revision petition is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. Petitioner be set free immediately, if not wanted in any other case. (Alok Singh) Judge May 11, 2011 R.S.