IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision Petition No.942 of 2000 Date of Decision: 10.9.2009 Salamu. ....... Petitioner through Shri Manoj Bajaj, Advocate. Versus State of Haryana. ....... Respondent through Mrs.Sushma Chopra, Addl.Advocate General. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This revision petition is directed against judgment dated 21.7.2000 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon (hereinafter described as `the appellate Court') vide which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment of conviction dated 5.8.1999 and order of sentence dated 6.8.1999 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court') were upheld. The petitioner was accused of having in possession of two weak and feeble cows and of taking them to Rajasthan for the purpose of slaughtering. It had happened at the Haryana – Rajasthan border. He is Crl.Revision Petition No.942 of 2000 -2- .... alleged to have made an attempt to abscond when confronted by the police party. The trial Court, as also the appellate Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten months for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act,1955, as applicable to the State of Haryana (for short, `the Act') for contravening the provisions of Section 4-A of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the out-set, contended with reference to the provisions of the Act that mere possession of cows is not an offence unless it is shown that the cows were in possession of the accused person for the purpose of slaughtering. He further contended that there is no evidence on record that the cows were meant for slaughter and even otherwise, he was spotted with the cows at the border and there is no evidence on record to establish as to whether he would have crossed the border to Rajasthan or not. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State contended that the petitioner is clearly guilty of the commission of the offence alleged against him and cogent reasons have been recorded by the Courts below in this regard. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that provisions of Section 4-A of the Act,although do envisage that the possession of cows for slaughtering as an offence, however it is for the prosecution to prove that the cows are in Crl.Revision Petition No.942 of 2000 -3- .... possession of some person for the purpose of slaughtering. Mere possession cannot be termed to be an offence. In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to establish that the petitioner was taking the cows to Rajasthan for slaughtering. He was not apprehended at the spot. In this view of the matter when there is no evidence to establish that the cows were being taken to Rajasthan for slaughtering, the conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellant Court deserve to be set aside. Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted, the impugned judgment is set aside, the conviction & sentence of the petitioner are upset and he is acquitted of the charge against him. September 10,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge