TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the judgment and order passed by the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur and the appellate order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurgaon were set-aside by the High Court in revision. 3. The accused persons were convicted under Section 8 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year by the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 14.09.1998 in Crl. Case No. 23/96. On Appeal, this order of conviction and sentence was confirmed and upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide order dated 01.06.2000 in Criminal Appeal No. 20/98. 4. The facts and circumstances, which are relevant, are as under: a) According to the prosecution, on 01.01.1996 H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. h) The accused persons challenged the aforesaid conviction and sentence, by filing an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, being Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1998. i) By an order-dated 01.06.2000 the Additional Sessions Judge, after a re-appreciation of evidence, confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. j) Against that order, the accused persons preferred a revision before the High Court. k) By impugned order-dated 20.04.2010 the High Court allowed the revision and set aside the order of conviction of the accused persons. 5. The High Court in its revisional jurisdiction while reversing the concurrent finding of the Courts below indicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tement of the P.W.-3 was not challenged in cross-examination. Nor has the accused persons ever questioned that the witnesses knew them prior to the date of the occurrence. The appellate forum also recorded that accused persons have not suggested that they were falsely implicated in the case. 9. In view of this admitted factual position, this Court cannot accept the reasoning of the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction whereby the High Court found that in the absence of independent local witness the prosecution case is not worthy of credence. The factual conclusion of the High Court is contrary to the evidence on record. 10. In this connection, it may be noted that in upsetting the concurrent finding of the courts below, about the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that an illegal search does not vitiate the seizure of the article. The only requirement of law in such cases is that the Court has to examine carefully the evidence regarding the seizure. But beyond this no further consequences ensues. (para 4, page 824 of the report) 16. This principle is being consistently followed by this Court and by different High Courts since then. Herein if we follow the aforesaid principle, we do not discern any error committed by the Courts below by proceeding on the material collected, as a result of the seizure of materials. 17. The other two points on which the High Court chose to interfere, namely the ownership of the house or the conscious possession of the house as a valid requisite before the accus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecified in clause (a) or clause (b) of Sub-section (1) it shall be incumbent for a person doing so to obtain a prior permission in writing of the Veterinary Officer of the area or such other Officer of the Animal Husbandry Department as may be prescribed. 20. The expression slaughter is defined in Section 2(e) of the Act, which is as follows: 2(e) - slaughter means killing by any method whatsoever and includes maiming and inflicting of physical injury which in the ordinary course will cause death. 21. If we read Section 3 and Section 4 together, it is clear that the person contravening Section 3 cannot put up a defense that the act of slaughter was being done in a place, of which he is not the owner or in respect of which he do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
