IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.248 of 2005 Date of Decision 29.11.2010 Aasu and another ...... Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Vivek Singla, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae, for the petitioners. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 11.01.2005, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewari, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 04.08.2000 vide which the trial Court at Rewari, convicted and sentenced the petitioners-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioners') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each under Section 4-A of the Cows Slaughter Act (for brevity 'the Act'). The allegations against the petitioners are that they were found having six cows alive and two cows dead in their possession which were loaded in a canter and they were in the business of transporting the aforesaid cows for slaughtering purpose from Haryana to Rajasthan. An FIR was registered against them and the matter was investigated. Consequently, they were charged, tried, convicted and sentenced accordingly. Their appeal also failed. Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, sufficient evidence Criminal Revision No.248 of 2005 -2- has been led in order to establish the charge against the petitioners. Both the witnesses namely Constable Radhe Shyam (PW1) and Head Constable Hans Raj (PW2) have consistently given minute details of occurrence while stating that the accused was taking the cows for the purpose of slaughtering. The evidence, on the basis of which findings of fact have been returned by the Courts below, appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity or any manifest error apparent on the record has been pointed out which may result into miscarriage of justice, therefore, these findings do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. Faced with the situation, the learned counsel has sought some leniency to the petitioners on the quantum of sentence. The occurrence is of the year 1996. The petitioners have already suffered a lot of agony on account of the pendency of proceedings in the Courts for the last fourteen years. They have already undergone three months and seventeen days of the substantive sentence and no bad antecedents have been pointed out to enable this Court to dub them habitual offenders, therefore, 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 which is reduced to six months without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Amicus Curiae would be at liberty to claim remuneration from the competent authority as per rules. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 29.11.2010 mamta-II