Karnataka High Court
Nissar Ahamed vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 June, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:23227
CRL.RP No. 968 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.968 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. NISSAR AHAMED
S/O LATE RASHID
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
OCCUPATION: DRIVER
R/O AMBEDKAR NAGAR CIRCLE
YASHWANTHPURA
BANGALORE - 560 021.
2. M D ASLAM PASHA
S/O SHAMSHUDDIN
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OCCUPATION:LORRY CLEANER
R/O HIGHWAY 511, 3RD CROSS
MODEL COLONY, YASHWANTHPURA
BENGALURU - 560 021.
...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA (BY SRI PRASANNA KUMAR P DAROJI, ADVOCATE)
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE PANCHANAHALLI POLICE STATION
REPTD. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. N ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:23227
CRL.RP No. 968 of 2016
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
SECTION 401 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE INCLUDING SENTENCE OF FINE
DATED 04.09.2015 PASSED BY THE IN THE COURT OF THE II
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC AT KADUR IN C.C.No.73/2012
AND ALSO JUDGMENT DATED 01.07.2016 PASSED BY THE PRL.
DIST. AND S.J., AT CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.No.137/2015
AND SET THE PETR. AT LIBERTY AND ALLOW THE R.P.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
1. This revision petition is directed against the
judgment dated 01.07.2016 passed in Crl.A. No. 137/2015
by the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Chikkamagaluru, whereunder the judgment dated
04.09.2015 passed in C.C. No. 73/2012 by the II
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur, convicting
petitioners for offence under Section 11(1)(a)(b) of
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Section 11 read
with Sections 4, 5, 8 and 9 of the Karnataka Prevention of
Cow Slaughter Act and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964
(hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1964) has been
affirmed.
NC: 2025:KHC:23227
HC-KAR
2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that
there is discretion to the Court to impose sentence of fine
only for offence under Section 11 of the Act, 1964. He
further submits that the petitioners have faced trial for 12
years and considering the age of the petitioners, he prays
for imposing the sentence of fine alone by setting aside
the sentence of imprisonment. On that point he has placed
reliance on a decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court
in the case of Abdul Khader Vs. The State of
Karnataka, Crl.R.P. No. 793/2016 disposed of on
31.08.2023.
3. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent would
contend that looking to the gravity of offence and number
of cattle involved in the case, sentence passed by the trial
Court and affirmed by the appellate Court is proper and
correct.
4. Even though grounds are urged for acquittal, as
learned counsel for petitioners at this stage is not
challenging the judgment of conviction and he has prayed
NC: 2025:KHC:23227
HC-KAR
for modification of the sentence, therefore, conviction of
petitioners for offence under Section 11 read with Sections
4, 5, 8 and 9 of the Act, 1964 is affirmed.
5. Coordinate Bench of this Court in Abdul
Khader's case (supra) has observes as under:
"15. The offence under Section 11 is punishable
with imprisonment which may be extend to six
months or fine, which may be extended to
Rs.1,000/- or both. Hence, it is evident that the
offence is punishable with imprisonment or fine or
both and discretion is granted to the court. Looking
to the age of the accused and considering the fact
that the matter is pending since 2012, it is not
proper to convict the accused by imposing sentence
of imprisonment at this belated stage and
considering the nature and gravity of the offence,
fine would serve the purpose. Hence, in my
considered opinion, fine would serve the purpose and
the order of sentence so far as it relates to
imprisonment is unwarranted. Considering these
facts and circumstances, the point under
consideration is partly answered in the affirmative
and the revision petition needs to be allowed partly
so far as it relates to only the sentence of
imprisonment."
NC: 2025:KHC:23227
HC-KAR
6. In the case on hand also petitioners have been
convicted for offence under Section 11 of the Act, 1964
and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for
the said offence. The petitioners have faced trial for 12
years and considering their age, nature and gravity of the
offence, now it is not proper to impose sentence of
imprisonment. Hence, in my considered view fine would
serve the purpose and order on sentence so far as it
relates to imprisonment is unwarranted. Considering these
aspects revision petition requires to be allowed in part.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
i. Revision petition is allowed in part.
ii. Impugned judgment of conviction dated
04.09.2015 passed in C.C. No. 73/2012 by the II
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur, and
affirmed by judgment dated 01.07.2016 passed in
Crl.A. No. 137/2015 by the Principal District and
NC: 2025:KHC:23227
HC-KAR
Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru stands
confirmed.
iii. However, sentence of imprisonment is set aside
and sentence stands confirmed insofar as it
relates to fine alone.
iv. Rest of the order stands confirmed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
LRS
