[2026:RJ-JD:8614]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1448/2023

1. Izhar Hussain S/o Shri Ibrahim, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Botalganj, Pipaliya Mandi Police Station, Distt. Neemach (Madhya Pradesh)

2. Munshi S/o Shri Hussain Ghari, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Botalganj, Pipaliya Mandi Police Station, Distt. Neemach (Madhya Pradesh)

----Appellants Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.S. Shaktawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment

12/02/2026

1. The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 13.07.2023 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Sessions Case No.57/2013 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Regulation of Temporary Migration Or Export) Act Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. In the present appeal, the surviving appellant is Izhar Hussain, arrayed as appellant No.1 whereas the co-appellant, Munsi, having expired during the pendency of proceedings, the appeal qua him stood abated by order dated 22.02.2026. Consequently, adjudication is confined exclusively to the case of the present appellant.

3. The prosecution case, in substance, is that On 27.04.2013, ASI Arjun Singh lodged a written report at Police Station Bichhiwara, District Dungarpur, stating that during patrol duty he received confidential information that a truck (RJ-02-1G-1715) was transporting calves towards the Gujarat border after creating concealed wooden partitions. Acting upon the tip-off, a naka-bandi was organized at Ratanpur on National Highway No. 8. The truck was intercepted, and its occupants Yusuf (driver), Chand Mohammed (cleaner), Izhar Hussain, and Munshi were questioned. Upon inspection, 51 calves and one dead calf were allegedly recovered, tied within double partitions. No valid permit for transportation was produced. Discrepancies were also noticed regarding the vehicle’s registration plates and documents. 3.1. On this basis, FIR No. 119/2013 was registered for offences under Sections 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 of the Rajasthan Animals (Bovine) Act, 1995. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused denied the charges; the prosecution examined its witnesses and exhibited documents, while the defence led no oral evidence. During trial, proceedings abated against Yusuf due to his death and Chand Mohammed was declared absconding. By judgment dated 13.07.2023, the trial court acquitted the appellants of offences under Sections 3/8 and 5/8 by extending benefit of doubt, but convicted and sentenced them under Sections 6/8 and

9 of the Act. Hence, the instant criminal appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as minutely gone through material available on record.

5. Upon perusal of the record it is revealing that a vehicle was intercepted by the authorities. At the time of interception, the Truck was allegedly being driven by Yusuf; one Chand Mohammad was present therein; a Khalasi (cleaner) was also found; and Munshi was stated to be the owner of the said vehicle. All these persons (Yusuf, Chand Mohammad and Munshi) since died. The present appellant was merely found seated in the truck. Significantly, no overt act, incriminating conduct, or specific role has been attributed to him. There is no material to demonstrate whether he was travelling as a passenger, assisting in transportation, or was even aware of the nature of the alleged activity. Equally, no evidence establishes any nexus between the appellant and the driver, owner, or cleaner, nor any proprietary or possessory connection with the vehicle(s) involved.

5.1. Thus, the entire edifice of prosecution against the appellant rests solely on his physical presence in the vehicle, a circumstance which, in criminal jurisprud