[2025:RJ-JP:40203] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1092/2006 Ishab son of Sukka, R/o Nangal Khangadi, Police Station Laxman garh District Alwar. (At present in District Jail Alwar) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shivam Sharma, Adv. For Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP with Mr. Shubham Kumar Sain, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :: 17/09/2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 07/10/2025 1. The petitioner Ishab has preferred this revision petition against the judgment dated 07.06.2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Laxmangarh, District Alwar in Criminal Case No.131/2000, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section 5(1)(8)(2) of RB Act:- Six months Simple Imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment. 2. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, District Alwar in Criminal Appeal No.24/2006, which was dismissed on 06.09.2006 and the appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court. [2025:RJ-JP:40203] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1092/2006] 3. Aggrieved with both the judgments, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 4. The brief and relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on 03.03.2000 at about 06:15 PM when Head Constable Ram Ji Lal and Constable Kanwar Dayal, Haneef Khan, Israk along with Jeep driver constable Mukesh Kumar had gone for patrolling, near Hingota Village from the side of Baroda Mev, they saw a person bringing six cows. As soon as the Government Jeep stopped, that person left the cows and started running away, who was accused-petitioner. Upon inquiry, he stated that he was taking the cows towards Haryana for the purpose of smuggling and slaughtering. Among them there were four cows and two heifers, therefore, he was apprehended on the spot along with the animals and a written complaint was lodged. 5. After due investigation charge-sheet was filed under Sections 5(1)(8)(2) of RB Act against the accused person before the learned trial Court. The learned trial court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned above and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned appellate court. 6. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner and confined his arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. Learned counsel for the petitioner however makes a limited prayer that the petitioner is facing trial since 2006 and has remained in [2025:RJ-JP:40203] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1092/2006] custody for one month thirteen days, therefore, he may be released for the period already undergone by him. 8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions and stated that in the backdrop of the overall facts and circumstances of the case and well reasoned order passed by both the courts below, the petitioner is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. 9. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 10. On perusal of the judgments of both the courts below, this Court is of the considered view that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 5(1)(8)(2) of RB Act. The appellate court has also after proper evaluation of material available on record rightly dismissed the appeal. Therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the findings given by both the courts below which warrants any interference by this Court by invoking the revisional jurisdiction. 11. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgments of conviction and has restricted his arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. The conviction of petitioner is therefore affirmed. 12. In the light of limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, the present petition is partly allowed while maintaining the conviction of the present petitioner for the offence under [2025:RJ-JP:40203] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1092/2006] Sections 5(1)(8)(2) of RB Act as recorded by the learned courts below in the impugned judgments, this Court interferes only with the sentence part of the said judgments and considering that there is no criminal antecedents exists and fact of protracted trial since 2006 and petitioner has remained in custody for about one month and thirteen days, this Court is inclined to take a liberal view, thus for the reasons discussed above, while maintaining the conviction under Section 5(1)(8)(2) of RB Act, the substantive sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by keeping the fine amount with the default imprisonment imposed by the courts below. 13. Consequently, this revision petition is disposed of accordingly. The petitioner is on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged accordingly. 14. All pending applications stands disposed of. Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J bmg/