JUDGMENT

Namit Kumar, J.

CRM-4289 of 2020

This application has been filed by the applicant-petitioners under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the revision petition.

2. Notice.

3. Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and submits that he has no objection if the delay of 13 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

4. In view of the averments made in the application, same is allowed. Delay of 13 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

CRR-346 of 2020

5. This revision petition has been filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 18.10.2019 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, as well as the judgment of conviction dated 27.09.2016 and order of sentence dated 28.09.2016 passed by Presiding Officer, Special Environment Court, Kurukshetra, whereby petitioners have been held guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 39 read with Section 5 1 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.

6. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.06.2012 Azad Singh Inspector Wildlife along with Ram Singh Sub Inspector Wildlife and Azad Member (People for Animal) were on patrolling duty and at about 5.00 p.m. they caught petitioners near Jamuna Canal Railway floyover, Uchana along with Khudala and an alive Monitor Lizard. The damage report No.4 was chalked out. It was further submitted that Monitor Lizard is a Schedule-1 animal and it could not be caught and killed as per law. Thereafter confessional statements of the petitioners were also recorded. Statements of Azad Singh Inspector Wildlife, Ram Singh Sub Inspector Wildlife and Azad Member (People for Animal) were also recorded. Monitor Lizard was released in jungle at about 10.00 p.m. by the wildlife officials after preparing a proper panchnama. Thus, a complaint under Sections 9 , 39 and 51 of the Act was filed.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of evidence on record, Presiding Officer, Special Environment Court, Kurukshetra vide judgment of conviction dated 27.09.2016 and order of sentence dated 28.09.2016 held the petitioners guilty and sentenced them as stated above.

8. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the trial Court, petitioners preferred appeal before the appellate Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 18.10.2019.

9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he does not wish to challenge the conviction of the petitioners on merits but would be satisfied if a lenient view is taken with respect to the sentence which has been awarded to the petitioners. In this regard he has submitted that incident is of the year 2012 and the petitioners have suffered the agony of trial for all these years. It is further submitted that petitioners have already undergone half of the sentence awarded by the trial Court. Under these circumstances, the sentence imposed upon the petitioners may be reduced to the one already undergone by them.

10. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon judgments of this Court in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab , 2010(9) RCR (Criminal) 648; Manjit Singh @ Mita and another v. State of Punjab, 2011(3) RCR (Criminal