ORDER :

1. The petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 28th February 2015 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 27 of 2011 by which their conviction and sentence awarded in G.R. Case No. 251 of 2006 corresponding to Trial No. 279 of 2011 under section 12 of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 (in short Bovine Animal Act) have been affirmed.

2. The only ground urged on behalf of the petitioners is that since the petitioners tendered evidence of purchase of the bovine animals provisions under sections 3 and 4 are not attracted and while so conviction and sentence awarded to them under section 12 of the Bovine Animal Act cannot sustain.

3. On the basis of the self-recorded statement of Shashikant Subhansu Kuzur, SI, on 2nd June 2006 at 11:00 PM, a First Information Report vide Kuru PS Case No. 51 of 2006 was registered under section 3/4 of the Bovine Animal Act against Md. Yasin Ansari, Md. Aleem Quraishi and Md. Firoz Quraishi. After the investigation a charge-sheet was laid and cognizance of the offence was taken under section 3/4 of the Bovine Animal Act, finding a prima facie case against them under section 12/15 of the said Act.

4. In course of the trial, two witnesses were examined one of whom PW-2 did not support the prosecution case. The trial Magistrate after considering the materials on record particularly evidence of PW-1 and the receipt of purchase which was issued by Krishi Utpadan Bazar Samitee came to a finding that the accused persons have contravened sections 4 and 5 of the Bovine Animal Act. For arriving at such conclusion, the learned trial Magistrate took particular notice of the purchase receipt which did not bear signature of either the seller or the buyer.

5. The learned trial Magistrate has held as under:

“According to Section 14 of 3/4 of Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 “Where any person is prosecuted for the offence under the provision of this Act, the burden of proof that he had not committed the offence under the provision of the Act, shall be on him, if the prosecution is in a position to produce the prima facie evidence, against him at the first instance.” It is clear from the language of the section that the prosecution is required only to produce prima facie evidence, against the accused for his prosecution under the Act and the burden lies heavily on the accused to show that he has not contravened any of the provisions under the Act. In the case at hand the PW-1 Has also said in his examination-in-chief that in both the receipts shown by the accused persons signature of sellers and buyers were missing and he has further said that they were carrying the animals for the purpose of slaughtering and in default of any cross-examination on this point his evidence has remained un-impeached on these point also apart from others discussed earlier. This I find that the prosecution has been able to produce prima facie evidence against the accused persons that they (accused persons) have contravened provision contained in Section 4 and 5 of the said Act. The accused persons have not adduced any evidence to show that they purchased the said animals as per the rule and they were carrying the same without contravention of provisions of the Act and also that they were carrying such huge quantity of animals for purposes other than slaughtering. Thus the accused persons have failed to discharge their burden as required under section 14 of the Act. Thus, the question no. (iii) is answered that the accused persons were carrying bovine animals in contravention of provisions of the Act. In the light of answer to all three question this Court finds the charge against the accused persons to be well proved.”

6. The accused persons have therefore been found guilty in the following terms:

Order

“Accused Md. Yaseen Ansari, Md. Aleem Quraishi and Firoz Quraishi are found and held guilty u/s 12 of Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as the Act)