Criminal Revision No. 593 of 1999 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 593 of 1999 Date of Decision: 22.5.2008 Waheed and Another …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) In the present case, Waheed son of Chajju and Noor Mohammed son of Samera were convicted and sentenced by the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh, on 29.4.1998 under Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act. The case was registered at Police Station Nuh. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, stated Criminal Revision No. 593 of 1999 2 that appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed by the Court learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, but they had deposited the amount of fine at the time of filing of appeal. A perusal of record reveal that the petitioners were taken into custody on 1.5.1999 and were ordered to be released on bail by this Court on 6.7.1999 when their sentence was suspended. According to Mr. Singla, the petitioners have undergone two months and seven days out of their actual sentence of four months. Case of the prosecution is that on 17.6.1994, Phool Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, Rajinder Singh, Roop Chand and Dharambeer, Constables, were present at Adbar Chowk, when they received a secret information that both the petitioners were selling beef at the rate of Rs.4/- per kg. and if raid is conducted they can be caught red handed. A raiding party was constituted. A raid was conducted and 20 kgs. of beef was recovered. Petitioners were arrested on 20.6.1994 and were released on bail by the trial Court on 21.6.1994. Mr. Singla has submitted that in the present case, no independent witness was associated. The two Courts below have returned a finding of fact and had relied upon the evidence of official witnesses. This Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot re- evaluate and re-appreciate their evidence. Mr. Singla in the alternative submitted that out of four months simple imprisonment, the petitioners have already undergone two months and seven days. It has been further submitted that occurrence in the present case had taken place on 17.6.1994 and the petitioners have suffered a protracted trial for 14 years. Mr. Singla further submitted that Criminal Revision No. 593 of 1999 3 in the past 14 years the petitioners have got many liabilities as they have moved ahead in their life and have got children of marriageable age. He has further submitted that the petitioners are not previous convict and in the last 14 years they have not committed any other offence and living their life as honest citizens. He has further submitted that by sending the petitioners behind the bars, after a period of 14 years, will serve no useful purpose. Taking into consideration the submissions made by Mr. Singla, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have suffered protracted trial of 14 years and their antecedents entitle them to reduction of sentence to already undergone as out of four months of actual sentence, they have undergone two months and seven days. Therefore, ends of justice will be fully met in case their sentence is reduced to already undergone, however, the sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/- qua each petitioner. In default of payment of fine, petitioners shall further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. With these observations, the present petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge May 22, 2008 “DK”