Criminal Revision No. 564 of 1996 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 564 of 1996 Date of Decision: 18.2.2008. Adreesh and Others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Dinesh Arora, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed by three accused namely, Adreesh son of Shareef, Seeta son of Unish, and Leela son of Mehru. They have been convicted under Section 8 of Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughtering Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”). The petitioners are facing prosecution in case FIR No. 73 dated 8.3.1996 registered at Police Station Pundri, under Section 8 of the Act. The petitioners were convicted by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal, under Section 8 of the Act and sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo Criminal Revision No. 564 of 1996 2 rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners filed an appeal, and the sentence of petitioners was reduced to six months, however, the sentence of fine was maintained. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that on 8.3.1986 at about 4.00 P.M., police party headed by Assistant Sub Inspector Rattan Singh, PW.4 along with his companion police officials, was present near High School Pai, when Ashwani and PW.1 Nigahiya met him. At that time, Adreesh, Seeta and Leela were sighted by them taking 14 Cows to Uttar Pradesh for the purpose of slaughtering as they were going towards village Bhana. It is a case of prosecution that accused/petitioners Adreesh and Seeta were apprehended at the spot, whereas Leela succeeded to escape. But at some distance, he was also apprehended. All the Cows were taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo Ex.PA. Necessary formalities of investigation i.e. sending of the ruqa, and registration of the formal FIR were followed. Rough site plan was also prepared. PW.3 Dr. Ashok Kumar, Veterinary Officer has submitted his report Ex.PB to state that the Cows could not yield milk, therefore, prosecution drew the inference that the Cows were to be slaughtered. Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners states that in the present case occurrence pertains to 8.3.1986 and period of 22 years has lapsed, out of sentence of six months awarded, petitioners have undergone about one month. However, Mr. Vikram Singh, taking into peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, stated that he will not contest the case on merits and confine his arguments on Criminal Revision No. 564 of 1996 3 quantum of sentence. Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners/accused and Mr. Dinesh Arora, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the state, have stated that there is no minimum sentence prescribed under the Act. Since the petitioners have suffered protracted trial of 22 years and sentence awarded was only six months, no useful purpose will be served by sending them behind the bars as in the last 20 years they may have fastened themselves with liabilities of family and their children will be of marriageable age. Protracted trial in itself is a reason for substantial reduction of sentence. Accordingly, sentence of petitioners is reduced to already undergone. With these modifications, the present revision petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 18, 2008 “DK”