- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23227 CRL.RP No. 968 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.968 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. NISSAR AHAMED S/O LATE RASHID AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O AMBEDKAR NAGAR CIRCLE YASHWANTHPURA BANGALORE – 560 021. 2. M D ASLAM PASHA S/O SHAMSHUDDIN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS OCCUPATION:LORRY CLEANER R/O HIGHWAY 511, 3RD CROSS MODEL COLONY, YASHWANTHPURA BENGALURU – 560 021. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI PRASANNA KUMAR P DAROJI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE PANCHANAHALLI POLICE STATION REPTD. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. N ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP) Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23227 CRL.RP No. 968 of 2016 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE INCLUDING SENTENCE OF FINE DATED 04.09.2015 PASSED BY THE IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC AT KADUR IN C.C.No.73/2012 AND ALSO JUDGMENT DATED 01.07.2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. AND S.J., AT CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.No.137/2015 AND SET THE PETR. AT LIBERTY AND ALLOW THE R.P. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 01.07.2016 passed in Crl.A. No. 137/2015 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, whereunder the judgment dated 04.09.2015 passed in C.C. No. 73/2012 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur, convicting petitioners for offence under Section 11(1)(a)(b) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Section 11 read with Sections 4, 5, 8 and 9 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1964) has been affirmed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23227 CRL.RP No. 968 of 2016 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that there is discretion to the Court to impose sentence of fine only for offence under Section 11 of the Act, 1964. He further submits that the petitioners have faced trial for 12 years and considering the age of the petitioners, he prays for imposing the sentence of fine alone by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment. On that point he has placed reliance on a decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Khader Vs. The State of Karnataka, Crl.R.P. No. 793/2016 disposed of on 31.08.2023. 3. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent would contend that looking to the gravity of offence and number of cattle involved in the case, sentence passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court is proper and correct. 4. Even though grounds are urged for acquittal, as learned counsel for petitioners at this stage is not challenging the judgment of conviction and he has prayed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23227 CRL.RP No. 968 of 2016 for modification of the sentence, therefore, conviction of petitioners for offence under Section 11 read with Sections 4, 5, 8 and 9 of the Act, 1964 is affirmed. 5. Coordinate Bench of this Court in Abdul Khader’s case (supra) has observes as under: “15. The offence under Section 11 is punishable with imprisonment which may be extend to six months or fine, which may be extended to Rs.1,000/- or both. Hence, it is evident that the offence is punishable with imprisonment or fine or both and discretion is granted to the court. Looking to the age of the accused and considering the fact that the matter is pending since 2012, it is not proper to convict the accused by imposing sentence of imprisonment at this belated stage and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, fine would serve the purpose. Hence, in my considered opinion, fine would serve the purpose and the order of sentence so far as it relates to imprisonment is unwarranted. Considering these facts and circumstances, the point under consideration is partly answered in the affirmative and the revision petition needs to be allowed partly so far as it relates to only the sentence of imprisonment.” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23227 CRL.RP No. 968 of 2016 6. In the case on hand also petitioners have been convicted for offence under Section 11 of the Act, 1964 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the said offence. The petitioners have faced trial for 12 years and considering their age, nature and gravity of the offence, now it is not proper to impose sentence of imprisonment. Hence, in my considered view fine would serve the purpose and order on sentence so far as it relates to imprisonment is unwarranted. Considering these aspects revision petition requires to be allowed in part. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following; O R D E R i. Revision petition is allowed in part. ii. Impugned judgment of conviction dated 04.09.2015 passed in C.C. No. 73/2012 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur, and affirmed by judgment dated 01.07.2016 passed in Crl.A. No. 137/2015 by the Principal District and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23227 CRL.RP No. 968 of 2016 Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru stands confirmed. iii. However, sentence of imprisonment is set aside and sentence stands confirmed insofar as it relates to fine alone. iv. Rest of the order stands confirmed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52