USMAN ALIAS CHIPPAD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) USMAN alias Chippad son of Ramjan and Wahid son of Majid, have filed the present revision and it has been directed against the judgment dated 9.1.1999, passed by the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, who maintained the conviction of the appellants u/s 4 of the Cow Slaughter Act. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :- On 13.5.1993, when the police party headed by HC Risal Singh in connection with patrolling and detection of cows slaughter, was present at Tauru Road, Nuh, an information was received about the appellants, residents of village Ujina, that they were exporting 11 cows in a truck bearing registration No. HYG 281 to Rajasthan through Chuharpur Valley for slaughtering and if a raid was conducted, they could be caught red-handed. On receipt of this information, a ruqa, Ex. PW-3/A, was sent to the police station, on the basis of which formal FIR. Ex. PW-3/D was recorded. Thereafter, raid as per information was conducted. When the police party reached on the Rajasthan Border after crossing Chuharpur valley, accused were seen unloading cows from the truck. On seeing the police party, they escaped towards is Rajasthan and could not be apprehended. The cows and the truck were taken into possession vide recovery memo, Ex. PW-1/A. Site plan was also prepared. The cows were ultimately sent to Goshala. Later on, the accused were arrested on 22.6.1993. The learned Magistrate vide judgment and order dated 27.4.1998 and 29.4.1998, respectively, convicted and sentenced the appellants u/s 4-A of the Cow Slaughter Act. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioners filed a revision before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, who for the reasons as set out in para-14 of the order, dismissed the appeal and sustained the conviction and sentence of the appellants. Para-14 reads as under :-

(2.) STILL not satisfied with the orders of the courts below, the present revision.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that a legal question in this case is involved which requires thorough scrutiny as the offence u/s 4-A of the Act has not been committed or constituted with the alleged act attributed to the petitioners. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners were not arrested at the spot. They were arrested after a period of about 40 days. There is no, prima facie, evidence to show that the petitioners were exporting the cows for the purpose of slaughtering and, in these circumstances, it was highly improper on the part of the appellate Court below to maintain the conviction of the petitioners u/s 4-A of the Act. The counsel further submitted that mere attempt is not punishable u/s 4-A of the Act. Support has also been taken by the counsel for the petitioner from Leela Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, (supra). Incidently, this authority was also relied upon by the petitioners before the first appellate Court.