IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 231/2006 Kazim & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents September 27, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. MA Khan, Brief Holder for the State. This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC) has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 23.12.2005 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 316/2005, State v. Julfkar & Ors. under Section 3/5/8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (for short, the Act) pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Roorkee, District Haridwar. Facts, in brief, are that an FIR was lodged against the seven accused persons including the petitioners with PS Jhabreda with the allegations that on 3.11.2005 at 11 am, on the information given by the police informant, the police party came in the village Latherdeva Sekh and they found that co- accused Julfkar was selling the beef to some persons. Seven persons including the petitioners were arrested by the police from the spot. Two persons ran away. The allegation made against the petitioners is that they were purchasing the beef and police party also recovered money from each of the petitioner. About 60 kg beef was recovered from the spot. A weighting machine and axe were also recovered. On the basis of this FIR, a case was registered against the petitioners and other co-accused under Section 3/5/8 of the Act. After the investigation, the I.O. submitted a chargesheet against the petitioners, on the basis of which learned trial court has taken the cognizance of the offence against the petitioners vide order dated 23.12.2005. 2 Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and the allegation against them is that they were only standing on the spot to purchase the beef and, therefore, necessary ingredients of Section 3 and 5 of the Act are not attracted against them. I do not find any force in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioners. Section 3 and 5 of the Act are quoted below for the sake of convenience: “3. Prohibition of cow slaughter.—(1) Except as hereinafter provided, no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered, or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter— (a) a cow, or (b) a bull or bullock, unless he has obtained in respect thereof a certificate in writing, from the competent authority of the area in which the bull or bullock is to be slaughtered, certifying that it is fit for slaughter, in any place in Uttar Pradesh; anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or an usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding. (2) No bull or bullock, in respect of which a certificate has been issued under sub-section (1)(b) shall be slaughtered at any place other than the place indicated in the certificate (3) A certificate under sub-section (1)(b) shall be issued by the competent authority, only after it has, for reasons to be recorded in writing certified that— (a) the bull or bullock is over the age of fifteen years; or (b) in the case of a bull, it has become permanently unfit and unserviceable for the purpose of breading and, in the case of bullock, it has become permanently unfit and unserviceable for the purposes of draught and any kind of agricultural operation: Provided that the permanently unfitness or unserviceability has not been caused deliberately. 3 5. Prohibition on sale of beef.—Except as herein excepted and notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, on no person shall sell or transport or offer for sale or transport or cause to be sold or transported beef or beef-products in any form except for such medicinal purposes as may be prescribed. Exception.—A person may sell and serve or cause to be sold and served beef or beef-products for consumption by a bona fide passenger in an aircraft or railway train.” As is obvious, the substantive purpose of the Act is total ban on cow slaughtering and whoever in any way help or give support in cow slaughtering, except for the exceptions as provided in the Act, is guilty of offence of cow slaughtering. In the instant case, the allegation against the petitioners is that they were purchasing the beef and thus they caused to be sold the beef and ultimately to cow slaughtering. Therefore, the ingredients of aforesaid sections of the Act are clearly attracted against the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners have clearly violated the provisions of the Act. Furthermore, on perusal of the contents of FIR and statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC and other evidence collected by the I.O., a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners under the aforesaid sections of the Act. The dispute involves factual question which cannot be decided by this Court. The dispute can be decided only after adducing the oral and the documentary evidence by the parties before the trial court. It cannot be decided by this Court only on the basis of papers filed on the record. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. If the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and the statements of witnesses recorded by the I.O. during the course of investigation are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioners have rightly 4 been summoned. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of Court. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 13.4.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 27.9.2010 PRABODH