Criminal Revision No.654 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.654 of 2000 Date of Decision 25.03.2010 Sahabudin ...... Petitioner(s) VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Puneet Sharma, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This petition is directed against the judgment dated 09.05.2000, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 28.07.1999, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, Jhirka, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 5 read with Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. Allegations against the accused are that on raid, accused and his sister Tabijan, were found selling the beef and 30 kgs beef, one dagger, one axe, one weighing scale and two weights of stone and piece of wood were recovered from their possession, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PA. Ruqa Ex.PC was sent to the police station on which FIR was recorded. Site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded and case was investigated. Completion of investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the accused was charged, tried and ultimately Criminal Revision No.654 of 2000 2 convicted and sentenced accordingly. On scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the evidence has been appreciated in the right perspective. Possession of 30 kgs of beef, one dagger, one axe, one weighing scale, two weights of stone and piece of wood from the accused stand duly proved. The medical evidence reveals that the stuff so recovered was beef. PW2 Dr.Om Parkash, Veterinary Surgeon, has proved his report Ex.PW2/A whereby he opined that he had examined the stuff so recovered and was found to be freshly slaughtered cow. The offence of possession of beef and the instruments used for aiding the cutting are covered by Section 5 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 which reads as under:- “Prohibition of Sale of beef:- Except as herein excepted and notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall sell or offer for sale or cause to be sold beef or beef products in any form except for such medicinal purposes as may be prescribed.” When a person is found in possession of heavy quantity of beef then presumption would be that the accused had kept the same for the purposes of sale unless it is proved otherwise. Nothing has been brought on record in order to establish if the beef was kept by the accused for preparation of some medicines or other medicinal purpose. Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, the evidence, as examined by the prosecution, appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity or perversity was detected rendering the judgment as invalid, therefore, the findings of fact returned by the Courts below regarding conviction do not Criminal Revision No.654 of 2000 3 call for any interference at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, there was one other accused namely Tabijan, sister of the accused, who was released on probation. The occurrence in this case took place way back in the year 1996. The accused was 35 years old at the time of occurrence. Now he must be in his 50s. I have been informed that he has left the business of selling beef and earning his livelihood by making labour. He has already suffered loss on account of the protracted proceedings pending in the Courts since 1996. Custody certificate, produced today, appears to be not correct. However, while calculating the period of custody during trial and after the appeal, it comes to 2 months and 8 days of the substantive sentence. There is no bad antecedents, brought on record, in order to enable this Court to reach the conclusion that the accused is an habitual offender, thus, it would be in the fitness of things to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- which would be deposited within three months from today, failing which he would be ready to serve the remaining part of sentence. Copy of the judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, for compliance. Amicus Curiae would be at liberty to claim the remuneration from the concerned authority as per rules. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 25.03.2010 mamta-II