IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.593 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: September 08, 2011 Gaffar .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Saini, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This revision petition has been filed in challenge to judgment of conviction dated 3.2.2009 recorded by the Trial Magistrate vide which the petitioner has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 3 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. Vide order dated 4.2.2009, the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment and pay fine ` 10,000/-. Criminal Revision No.593 of 2011 [2] 2. The judgment of conviction has been upheld by the Appellate Court vide other impugned judgment dated 12.1.2011 recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nuh. 3. The Courts below have taken into account the testimony of the complainant. Following the trail given by the complainant, place where the cow had been slaughtered was located. Recovery of horns, hooves and other left over parts of the cow was effected. The testimony of the complainant has been corroborated by the testimony of Investigating Officer, Sant Lal. Recovery memo has been proved as Exh.PW-1/B. Site plan in relation to the recovery of remnants of cow has been proved as Exh.PW2/B. The name of the accused has been mentioned in the FIR itself. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to draw attention of the Court towards any relevant piece of evidence that has not been considered by the Courts below for recording conviction. It has also not been shown that any piece of evidence has been perversely read so as to cause injustice. All that has been argued is that the petitioner shall pay more fine and in that lieu, the order of imprisonment be modified. 5. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. 6. Order of sentence, dated 4.2.2009 considers all the relevant aspects of the case in context of which sentence has been recorded. I find no reason to interfere therewith. 7. The petition is dismissed. Criminal Revision No.593 of 2011 [3] (AJAI LAMBA) September 08, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?