ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. The instant appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused-appellants against the judgment dated 15.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Parbatsar, District Nagaur in Sessions Case No.20/2012 whereby the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as under:- Name of the accused Offence for which convicted Substantive sentence Fine and default sentence Rameshwar Jagmal Section 5/8 of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal Act, 1955 Two years' RI Fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment of two months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the SHO, Police Station, Parbatsar District Nagaur and lodged an FIR No.83/2012 at the Police Station Parbatsar, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 3, 5, 6, 8 & 9 of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1995') alleging inter alia that upon information of illegal transport of bovines, a team was constituted and upon search of a truck, appellants were found along with 10 oxes, out of which one had died. After investigation, the appellants and one Bhagwana Ram were charge-sheeted. It is revealing that during trial, the said Bhagwana Ram had passed away. After taking cognizance and framing of charges, as many as 9 witnesses were examined and 16 documents were tendered into evidence on behalf of the prosecution. Thereafter, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they claimed innocence and after affording opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted the accused appellants for the offences under Section 5/8 of the Act of 1995 and sentenced them to suffer two years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default in payment of fine to further undergo 2 months simple imprisonment. 3. At the outset the learned counsel Shri Rakesh Matoria, representing the appellants submitted that he does not wish to press the finding of guilt and judgment of conviction but seeks benevolence on the point of sentence. 3. At the outset the learned counsel Shri Rakesh Matoria, representing the appellants submitted that he does not wish to press the finding of guilt and judgment of conviction but seeks benevolence on the point of sentence. He further states that in Para No.26 of the judgment impugned it has been mentioned that it was the first offence of the appellants and they have no other criminal incident antecedent; the appellants are poor villagers neither they were owner of the vehicle nor of the cattles; they were the employees and not the owner of the truck used for the commission of offence, reformative approach should be adopted to reform or rehabilitate them by reducing their sentence to period they have undergone. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the judgment impugned. 5. I have gone through the facts of the case minutely and convinced that the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Judge is up to mark and no error has been committed in passing the same, therefore, the judgment of conviction is affirmed and appeal to this extent is dismissed. 6. So far is the question of sentence part is concerned, it is stated that the accused-appellants were youth at the time of incident; they were aged between 30 to 35 years; they have no criminal antecedent, this fact has also been observed by the learned trial Judge; they had remained in jail for some time; during investigation and trial and where after around 15 days post conviction. The incident took place in the year 2012 and since then, they are continuously attending the court proceedings for last 11 years. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the offence; the circumstances of case as well as looking to the social and economical background of the accused and their family details; the persons dependent upon them; mainly looking to the fact that they belonged to a remote village and are indigent persons, I deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court to the period under gone by them. 7. 7. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das v. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) "There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances." Haripada Das (Supra) "...considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..." 8. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellants and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the appellants conviction under Section 5/8 of the Act of 1995, the sentences awarded to them are reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 9. Application for Suspension of Sentence and all pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Record of the learned Court below be sent back forthwith.