Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1305 (RAJ)

Bundu Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2000-10-24

BHAGWATI PRASAD

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - Learned counsel for the petitioners does not challenge their factum of conviction. 2. The Court below convicted the accused petitioners Bundu Khan and Deena Ram under Section 5(7) read with Section 8(2) of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughters) and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export Act, 1995 (referred to hereinafter as the Act) and accused petitioner Mohd. Ismile under Section 6 read with Section 8(2) of the Act and sentenced to 6 months R.l. and a fine of Rs. 3000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo one months S.I. under the aforesaid Sections. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the accused had already served out sentence to the extent of about twenty days and, in these circumstances instead of asking the petitioners to serve out the remaining sentence, they be released on the sentence already gone by them and fine may be enhanced. He proposes that a sum of Rs. 15000/- may be ordered to be paid as fine. 4. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the accused petitioners were sentenced in the year 1998 and the incident is of the year 1997 and the revision is being heard in the year 2000 coupled with the fact that the accused had already served out about 20 days sentence, this Court feels persuaded that instead of maintaining the sentence of imprisonment of the accused petitioner he be saddled with financial liability and the fine should be ordered to be enhanced. Therefore, it is ordered that each accused petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with the Trial Court. In case the amount is not deposited, the accused petitioner shall undergo the sentences recorded against him by the learned Trial Court, if the amount is paid then the sentence of imprisonment shall stand converted into that of already undergone with enhanced fine and they be released forthwith. 5. In the result, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner the revision petition is partly allowed as indicated above.Revision partly allowed. *******