JUDGMENT 1. - Accused-appellants, namely, 1. Sabir s/o Gani Khan Pathan, (2) Mohammad Ibrahim S/o Noor Khan Pathan, 3. Rashid Khan @ Abdul Majid S/o Nazeer Khan, and 4. Nisar Ahmed S/o Bashir Ahmed Pathan, have preferred this appeal under Section 374, Cr.P.C., challenging their conviction and sentence passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Beawar, vide its judgment and order dated 17.3.2004, in Sessions Case No.113/2002, whereby the trial court convicted and sentenced each of them under Section 3 read with Section 8 (1) of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 (for short, 'the Act, 1995'), to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, each; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's additional simple imprisonment. The charge against the accused-appellants was that they cut a cow. The prosecution examined oral and documentary evidence in support of the charge. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as mentioned above. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Anurag Sharma did not challenge the conviction of the accused-appellants recorded by the trial court under Section 3 read with Section 8 (1) of the Act, 1995, and prayed that accused Sabir has remained in jail for about three years and other three accused-persons have remained in jail for about 1 year and 5 months each. Therefore, they have already completed the minimum sentence of one year imprisonment prescribed under the Act, 1995, therefore their sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to a period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by them. 3. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants.PW-1 Poonam Singh, PW-2 Kalu @ Narendra, PW-3 Dilip Singh and PW-5 Bhanwar Singh have specifically stated against the accused-appellants in respect of the offence committed by them under Section 3 read with Section 8 of the Act, 1995. The weapons used by them in committing the offence were also recovered at their instance vide recovery-memos Exhibit P-19 to Exhibit P-22. The dead-body of cow was also recovered vide recovery-memo Exhibit P-7. 4. The weapons used by them in committing the offence were also recovered at their instance vide recovery-memos Exhibit P-19 to Exhibit P-22. The dead-body of cow was also recovered vide recovery-memo Exhibit P-7. 4. In view of the overwhelming evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, I am satisfied that the learned trial court has rightly convicted the accused appellants for the above offence and the learned counsel for the appellants rightly did not challenge the conviction of the accused-appellants for the above offence passed by the trial court.So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants about reduction of sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court is concerned, I find that under Section 8 of the Act, 1995, it is provided that whoever contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets the contravention of the provisions of Section 3 shall, on conviction, be punished with a rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. As per the record of the trial court the accused-appellants have already remained in jail as under:- Sabir S/o Gani Khan Pathan Mohammad Ibrahim S/o Noor Khan Pathan Rashid Khan @ Abdul Majid S/o Nazeer Khan Nisar Ahmed S/o Bashir Ahmed Pathan 3 years 4 months 27 days 1 year 5 months 4 days 1 year 5 months 5 days 1 year 4 months 11 days 5. The facts of the case reveal that the charge against four accused-appellants was about slaughter of one cow and they have already completed the minimum sentence as prescribed under the Act, 1995. The trial court has awarded the maximum sentence of ten years imprisonment which cannot be said to be justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, I find this case to be a fit one to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of the accused-appellants to a period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by them, as mentioned above. 6. Therefore, I find this case to be a fit one to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of the accused-appellants to a period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by them, as mentioned above. 6. Consequently, the appeal of the appellants is partly allowed; their conviction under Section 3 read with Section 8 (1) of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995, is upheld, but their sentence of imprisonment is reduced to a period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by them, as mentioned in preceding part of this judgment. 7. The appellants Mohammad Ibrahim, Rashid Khan @ Abdul Majid and Nisar Ahmed are on bail and they need not to surrender; their bail bonds stand discharged. 8. The appellant Sabir S/o Gani Khan Pathan is in judicial custody, therefore, he may be released forthwith, if his custody is not required in any other case.Appeal Partly allowed as above. *******