IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.Revision No. 543 of 1996
Date of Decision: 30.7.2009
Khalil and others.
....... Petitioners through Shri
Vikram Singh, Advocate.
Versus
State of Haryana.
....... Respondent through Shri
Ajay Singh Ghangas,Deputy
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
17.7.1996 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal (hereinafter described
as `the appellate Court’) by which the conviction of the petitioners as
recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,Kaithal (referred to hereinafter
as `the trial Court’) vide judgment dated 12.10.1993 was upheld, but the
quantum of sentence was reduced.
The petitioners were challaned for having committed 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’) as they were allegedly taking four cows for slaughtering.
Crl.Revision No.543 of 1996
-2-
….
The trial Court, after completion of proceedings, held the
petitioners guilty of the charge and sentenced them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in
default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo further rigorous
imprisonment for three months.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal which was
disposed of by the appellate Court vide the impugned judgment and while
maintaining the conviction, the sentence relating to imprisonment was
reduced to six months.
Hence, this revision petition.
At the out-set, learned counsel for the petitioners contended
that he does not wish to advance arguments on the merits of the case for the
simple reason that the occurrence is stated to be of the year 1986 and that
the petitioners have, by now, faced the agony of criminal proceedings for
the last about twenty three years. He contended that no fruitful purpose
would be served by sending the petitioners at this tail end of their life to
suffer the sentence of imprisonment, especially when there is only
allegation that they were taking the cows for slaughtering and there was no
actual slaughtering. He prayed that a lenient view may be taken in these
circumstances.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contended that
since the petitioners have been found guilty of violating the provisions of
the Act, they do not deserve any leniency.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the
Crl.Revision No.543 of 1996
-3-
….
opinion that the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners deserves to
be accepted.
The offence was allegedly committed on 8.3.1986 when the
petitioners were intercepted by the police while taking four cows for
slaughtering.
Having regard to the fact that the petitioners are facing criminal
proceedings for the last twenty three years and they would have been well
advanced in age by now, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment
awarded to the petitioners should be reduced to that of already undergone
and instead, the amount of fine should be enhanced. For this view, I draw
support from the ratio of the law laid down in Kharak Singh and others
Versus State of Punjab, 2004(1) RCR (Criminal) 766 (P&H); Sadhu Singh
Versus State of Punjab, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 108 (P&H); Moti Sagar
and others Versus State of Haryana and another, 2004(3) RCR (Criminal)
519 (P&H) and Darshan Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2006(2) RCR
(Criminal) 212 (P&H).
Consequently, the revision petition is disposed of in the
following terms:-
(i) The conviction of the petitioners shall remain intact;
(ii) the sentence of imprisonment awarded to them is reduced to
that of already undergone and rather, the fine imposed upon
them is enhanced to Rs.5000/- each which shall include the
fine of Rs.1000/- already imposed by the trial Court and
affirmed by the appellate Court . The enhanced fine shall be
Crl.Revision No.543 of 1996-4-
….
deposited by the petitioners within a period of three months
from today before the trial Court.
(iii) in the event of failure of the petitioners to deposit the fine
within the stipulated period , the sentence of imprisonment as
awarded by the appellate Court shall automatically stand
revived.
July 30,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) "SCM" Judge