MOHD TARIQ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur dismissing the appeal against the conviction and sentence of the applicant under Sec. 5/8 of the U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act.

(2.) According to the facts as they appear from the record the applicant was arrested by SI Bharat Singh and constables Mahendra Singh, Netrapal Singh, Veerpal Singh, Om Prakash and Bachcha Peshwan on 23rd July 1979 at about 1 P. M. on a Kharanja near Sahria Baraj within the police circle Tanka in the District of Rampur and beef was found in his possession. The beef recovered from his possession was duly sealed. A report was lodged at the Police Station and the case was duly registered under the above section. The beef recovered from the possession of the applicant was sent to the Veterinary Surgeon Dr. Jagdish who was of the opinion that the flesh recovered from the possession of the applicant was the meat of a cow or its progeny. After completing the investigation a charge sheet was submitted against the applicant. Only two constables who were present at the time of the recovery, namely, Netrapal Singh, PW 1 and Mahendra Singh, PW 2 were produced to prove the recovery of the beef from the possession of the applicant. Besides these witnesses Dr. Jagdish, PW 3 was also produced. The applicant was examined by the learned Magistrate after the evidence had concluded against him. It was put to him that he was carrying a certain quantity of beef which was recovered from his possession and this fact was denied by the applicant. The contention raised before both the courts below was that under Ss. of the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act mere possession of the beef was not an offence but it would be an offence only if the prosecution proves that beef was being transported for sale. This contention was negatived by the learned Sessions Judge who heard the appeal.

(3.) In revision before me it is contended that the courts below had committed an error in convicting the applicant under Sec. 5 of the Cow Slaughter Act. So far as the two witnesses who were examined had stated that the applicant had stated before the Police Officer at the time of recovery that the beef was being transported for sale. However, these are the admissions made by the accused before the Police Officer and are, therefore, inadmissible in evidence. There is no other evidence as such on the record to show that the applicant was transporting beef for sale. It may also be mentioned that in the examination of the applicant after the conclusion of the evidence it was not put to him that he was transporting beef for sale. The only question put to him was that he was found in possession of a particular quantity of beef. This was denied by him. Sec. 5 of the Prevention of Cow Salughter Act runs as follows: -