Criminal Revision No. 1533 of 1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1533 of 1999 Date of decision: 14-1-2010 Chottu and another .........Petitioners Vs State of Haryana .........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Shri R.S.Sihota, Senior Advocate, with Shri B.R.Rana, Advocate, for the petitioners Shri Tarunveer Vashist, Additional Advocate General, Haryana HARBANS LAL, J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 3.12.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred by accused Chottu and Hasham uraf Hassan against the judgment dated 20.5.1998 order of sentence dated 21.5.1998 rendered by the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh vide which he convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each under Section 8 of the Cow Slaughter Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). The facts in brief are, that on 17.9.1992 Om Parkash Head Constable alongwith Constable Sher Singh and Dharambir happened to be present on bus stand Ghasera being on patrol duty for detection of crime. Meanwhile, he received a secret information that the above mentioned accused were slaughtering cows and selling their beef by raising a loud voice in the courtyard of their house situated in village Ghasera and if an Criminal Revision No. 1533 of 1999 2 immediate raid was conducted, they can be caught red handed. On receipt of this information, their house was raided. The accused Chhottu was found weighing beef, whereas Hasham accused was found cutting the beef in small pieces. On catching sight of the police party, they ran away by leaving the weighing scale etc. there. Om Parkash Head Constable seized these articles vide recovery memo. The case was got registered. In due course, the accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the court of learned Ilaqa Magistrate for trial of the accused. The accused were charged under Section 5 read with Section 8 of the Act to which they did not plea guilty and claimed trial. In order to bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined Constable Sher Singh PW-1, S.N.Bhardwaj Veterinary Surgeon PW-2, ASI Om Parkash PW-3 and closed its evidence. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them. They did not adduce any evidence in their defence. After hearing learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced both the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, they went up in appeal, which was dismissed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by both the Courts below, they have filed this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Criminal Revision No. 1533 of 1999 3 Realizing that he would not be able to persuade the Court to take a view contrary to the findings returned by both the Courts below, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he does not wish to assail the conviction recorded by both the Courts below in any manner. On analyzing and scrutinizing the prosecution evidence with due care and caution, it transpires that no exception can be taken to the findings returned by the both the Courts below. Consequently, conviction is maintained. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been facing the agony of trial since 1992 and that being so the sentence may be slashed to the already undergone. I have well considered this submission. Herein, as per the custody certificate taken on record, the petitioners have undergone 16 days(each) of the actual sentence. The petitioners while on bail during the pendency of this revision did not make misuse of this opportunity. Taking into consideration the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of both the petitioners is reduced to the already undergone (16 days). With this modification in the order of sentence, this revision fails and is dismissed. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE January 14, 2010 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No