IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

220

CRR-38-2008 (O&M)

Reserved on: 15/03/2022

Pronounced on: 28/03/2022

JAKIR

....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

*****

Present :

Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG Haryana.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. J.

The instant revision petition raises a challenge to the judgement of

conviction dated 03.01.2007 and order of sentence dated 06.01.2007 passed by

the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur Jhirka in case FIR

No.22 dated 18.01.2002 under Section 5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act registered at

Police Station Punhana; as well as judgement dated 22.12.2007 passed by

Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurgaon, dismissing the appeal

preferred by the petitioner.

2.

By means of the judgement of conviction and order of sentence

passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Ferozepur Jhirka, the petitioner was

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, however,

the said sentence was reduced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track

Court, Gurgaon to a period of six months.

FACTS:

3.

Before proceeding further in the matter it is pertinent to refer to the

bare essential facts as are necessary for appreciation of the controversy involved

SANDAL SHARMA

2022.03.31 10:34

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRR-38-2008 (O&M)

- 2 -

in the instant case.

(i)

As per the case of the prosecution, the Police party headed by ASI

Bhajan Lal was on patrol duty on 12^th January, 2002 at about 10:45

AM at Punhana turning point.

(ii)

The police party claims to have received a secret information to the

effect that petitioner-Jakir S/o Deena had stored fresh beef inside his

scooter after slaughtering a cow and that in case a raid is conducted

the accused can be apprehended selling beef by calling out to the

general public at large.

(iii)

The police party claims to have reached the spot in order to apprehend

the petitioner, however, he made good his escape and left behind the

scooter as well as the beef contained in the storage compartment

thereof.

(iv)

It is contended by the investigating officer that the accused-petitioner

was previously known to him and hence was duly identified by him.

(v)

The scooter did not bear any registration number.

(vi)

Twenty kilograms of freshly cut beef was recovered from the

polythene bag packed in the storage compartment of the scooter.

(vii)

Photographs of the scooter as well as beef contained therein were

taken and the case was thereafter duly registered.

(viii)

During investigation, site plan and recovery memo of scooter as well

as beef were got prepared and a sample of beef was got examined

from veterinary surgeon. After completion of various formalities final

report against the petitioner was submitted.

(ix)

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 05

witnesses. The veterinary surgeon appeared as PW-1 and proved his

SANDAL SHARMA

2022.03.31 10:34

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRR-38-2008 (O&M)

- 3 -

report Ex.PB. As per which the sample tested by him were those of

cow.

(x)

The investigating officer has proved various recovery memos,

endorsement, site plan and other applications. The photographs were

exhibited as Ex.P-3 and PW-4 appeared as a witness of the

prosecution to the preparation of the relevant documents and also

identified the petitioner-Jakir.

(xi)

After closure of the prosecution evidence, the entire incriminating

evidence was put to the petitioner and statement under section 313

CrPC was recorded, to which the petitioner denied and pleaded that

he had been falsely implicated in the said case. However no evidence

in defence was led by him.

(xii)

Upon consideration of the evidence Sub-Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, Ferozepur Jhirka held that the prosecution was successful

in e