Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Roshan Khan vs State Of Raj. (2025:Rj-Jd:14741) on 19 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:14741]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 116/2004
Roshan Khan S/o Jamal Khan, Aged about 32 years, R/o Charnai
Tehsil, Phalodi, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
[Lodged in Sub Jail Abu Road]
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.R. Malkani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG
with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
19/03/2025
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment dated 23.02.2004 passed in Criminal
Original Appeal No.06/2003 by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Abu Road, District Sirohi, by which the appellate court dismissed
the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment dated
03.03.2003, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
(Fast Track), Abu Road, District Sirohi in Criminal Original Case
No.811/2002 by which the learned trial court convicted and
sentenced the petitioner as under :
S.No. Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
1. 11 of the - Rs.50/- 7 days SI
Prevention of
Cruelty to
Animals Act
2. 5/8 of the 3 years RI Rs.5,000/- Six month RI
Rajasthan
Bovine
Animals Act,
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
[2025:RJ-JD:14741] (2 of 4) [CRLR-116/2004]
Brief facts of the case are that on 05.03.2000, Head
Constable Balwant Singh lodged a written report at Police Station
Abu Road and alleged that while on duty at a Police blockade, he
searched a truck bearing registration No.RJ 19 1G 0318 and found
41 calves in the truck which were tied with ropes. No document in
respect of the animals being carried was found and upon inquiry, it
was revealed that the calves were being transported to Gujarat for
slaughter. Consequently, the complainant lodged an FIR
No.35/2000 under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act and Section 5/8 of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal
(Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or
Export) Act.
After completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the petitioner. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges
against the accused petitioner for offences under Sections 11 of
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and 5/8 of Rajasthan Bovine
Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary
Migration or Export) Act, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 5 witnesses and submitted certain documents in support of its
case. Thereafter, statements of the accused petitioner was
recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 03.03.2003 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offences.
Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
[2025:RJ-JD:14741] (3 of 4) [CRLR-116/2004]
which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 23.02.2004.
Hence, this revision petition.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner
submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but
since the occurrence is related to the year 2000 and out of total
sentence of about three years R.I., the accused petitioner has
remained in custody for sometime, therefore, it is prayed that the
sentence awarded to petitioner for the aforesaid offences may be
reduced to the period already undergone by them.
On the other hand, learned AAG opposed the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and
submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the
sentence awarded to the accused petitioner nor any compassion or
sympathy is called for in the said case.
I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as
defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding
conviction of the accused-petitioner.
Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2000 and
the petitioner have remained in custody for about sometime, out
of total sentence of three years R.I., so also suffered the mental
agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all
circumstances and the fact that the petitioners have remained
behind the bars for a considerable time, it will be just and proper,
if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under
Sections 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and 5/8 of
the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and
Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act as affirmed by
the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone.
[2025:RJ-JD:14741] (4 of 4) [CRLR-116/2004]
Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under Sections
11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and 5/8 of Rajasthan
Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of
Temporary Migration or Export) Act, the sentence awarded to
them for the aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period
already undergone. The fine amount imposed by the trial court is
hereby maintained. The amount of fine imposed by the trial court,
if not already deposited by the petitioner, then two months' time is
granted to the petitioner to deposit the fine amount before the
trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall
undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The petitioner is on
bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled.
Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
The records of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
3-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
