1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 94 of 2016 1. Indradev Choudhary S/o Late Mangar Choudhary, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Village - Chhapardaga, Thana Gadwa, Distt. Gadwa, Jharkhand, 2. Vishawnath Choudhary S/o Late Foudari Choudhary, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village - Danda, Thana Gadwa, Distt. Gadwa, Jharkhand, 3. Vijay Choudhary S/o Indradev Choudhary, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village - Chhapardaga, Thana Gadwa, Distt. Gadwa, Jharkhand, 4. Ganesh Mahato S/o Rama Mahato, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village - Nagar - Pratappur, Thana - Mahuadand Distt. Latehar, Jharkhand, --- Applicants versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Bagicha, District – Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, --- Respondent Criminal Revision No. 1134 of 2016 • Prabhuram Uranw S/o Leger Uranw, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Leelkanthpur, Thana Kusmi, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh, ---Applicant Versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, --- Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For State/Respondents : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.04.29 17:31:53 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 28/04/2025 1. The present revisions are filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 27.01.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District - Jashpur, (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.30/2015 arising out of judgment dated 05.06.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagicha, District – Jashpur in Criminal Case No.65/2013 wherein the applicants/accused persons have been convicted under Section 6 read with Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years each and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 03 months. The learned Appellate Court affirmed the said judgment, hence, these revisions. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the on 27.02.2013, the complainant, namely, Sanjay Yadav (PW-01) lodged a report (Ex.P-1) in police station Bagicha, stating that the present applicants/accused persons were taking agricultural cattle, bullocks and calves total 32 in numbers, on foot for the purpose of slaughtering. On the basis of the said report, the police recovered the said cattle from the possession of the applicants/accused persons. During investigation, the applicants/ accused persons were arrested. Statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagicha, District Jashpur, (C.G.). The applicants abjured the charges and pleaded non-guilty. 3 4. The Court of learned JMFC as well as the Appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicants/accused persons as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, these revisions. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to press these revisions on conviction part of the applicants, but confines his argument to the sentence part only, which according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that there is no prescribed minimum punishment under the aforesaid Section. He further submits that 4 applicants (in CRR No.94/2016) have remained in jail for about 39 days, i.e. 18 days during trial and from 27.01.2016 to 17.02.2016 (modified date), further, the applicant Prabhuram (in CRR No.1134/2016) has remained in jail for about 116 days i.e. 18 days during trial and 98 days from 03.09.2016 to 09.12.2016, they have no criminal antecedents and they are facing lis since the year 2013. He also submits that the fine amount has already been deposited with the concerned trial Court. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revisions and supported the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the statements of complainant Sanjay Yadav (PW-1), Muneshwar Yadav (PW-02), Ayodhya (PW-03), Murari Yadav (PW-04) and Govind Yadav (PW-05) and the other evidence and material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court 4 being based on the evidence available on record is a correct finding and I hereby affirm the said finding of conviction of applicants/accused persons. 9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the facts that applicants have remained in jail, they are facing the lis since February, 2013 i.e. for more than 12 years, there are no criminal antecedents against them and fine amount has already been deposited, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period 39 days which has already been undergone by them. 10. Consequently, the revisions are partly allowed. The conviction of the applicants under the aforementioned Sections is affirmed and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine sentence is affirmed. 11. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prakash