Jharkhand High Court
Md. Yasin Ansari S/O Late Yakeen Ansari ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ..... Opposite ... on 4 November, 2022
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 428 of 2015
1. Md. Yasin Ansari s/o Late Yakeen Ansari r/o village Pandri PO & PS-
Chanho, District-Lohardaga
2. Md. Aleem Quraishi s/o Late Mustakim Quraishi r/o village Lapur, PO &
PS-Kuru, District-Lohardaga
3. Md. Firoz Quraishi s/o Late Abdul Gafoor Quaishi r/o village-Lapur, PO
& PS-Kuru, District-Lohardaga ...... . Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioners : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.PP
-------
Order No.07 /Dated: 4th November 2022 The petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 28th February 2015 passed in Cr. Appeal No.27 of 2011 by which their conviction and sentence awarded in G.R Case No.251 of 2006 corresponding to Trial No.279 of 2011 under section 12 of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 (in short, Bovine Animal Act) have been affirmed.
2. The only ground urged on behalf of the petitioners is that since the petitioners tendered evidence of purchase of the bovine animals provisions under sections 3 and 4 are not attracted and while so conviction and sentence awarded to them under section 12 of the Bovine Animal Act cannot sustain.
3. On the basis of the self-recorded statement of Shashikant Subhansu Kuzur, SI, on 2nd June 2006 at 11:00 PM, a First Information Report vide Kuru PS Case No.51 of 2006 was registered under section 3/4 of the Bovine Animal Act against Md. Yasin Ansari, Md. Aleem Quraishi and Md. Firoz Quraishi. After the investigation a charge-sheet was laid and cognizance of the offence was taken under section 3/4 of the Bovine Animal Act, finding a prima facie case against them under section 12/15 of the said Act.
4. In course of the trial, two witnesses were examined one of 2 Criminal Revision No. 428 of 2015 whom PW2 did not support the prosecution case. The trial Magistrate after considering the materials on record particularly evidence of PW 1 and the receipt of purchase which was issued by Krishi Utpadan Bazar Samitee came to a finding that the accused persons have contravened sections 4 and 5 of the Bovine Animal Act. For arriving at such conclusion, the learned trial Magistrate took particular notice of the purchase receipt which did not bear signature of either the seller or the buyer.
5. The learned trial Magistrate has held as under:
"According to Sc. 14 of 3/4 of Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005, "Where any person is prosecuted for the offence under the provision of this Act, the burden of proof that he had not committed the offence under the provision of the Act, shall be on him, if the prosecution is in a position to produce the prima facie evidence, against him at the first instance." It is clear from the language of the section that the prosecution is required only to produce prima facie evidence, against the accused for his prosecution under the Act and the burden lies heavily on the accused to show that he has not contravened any of the provisions under the Act. In the case at hand the P.W.1 Has also said in his examination-in-chief that in both the receipts shown by the accused persons signature of sellers and buyers were missing and he has further said that they were carrying the animals for the purpose of slaughtering and in default of any cross-examination on this point his evidence has remained unimpeached on these point also apart from others discussed earlier. This I find that the prosecution has been able to produce prima facie evidence against the accused persons that they (accused persons) have contravened provision contained in Sc.4 & 5 of the said Act. The accused persons have not adduced any evidence to show that they purchased the said animals as per the rule and they were carrying the same without contravention of provisions of the Act and also that they were carrying such huge quantity of animals for purposes other than slaughtering. Thus the accused persons have failed to discharge their burden as required under section 14 of the Act. Thus, the question no(iii) is answered that the accused persons were carrying bovine animals in contravention of provisions of the Act. In the light of answer to all three question this Court finds the charge against the accused persons to be well proved."
6. The accused persons have therefore been found guilty in the following terms:
Order "Accused Md. Yaseen Ansari, Md. Aleem Quraishi and Firoz Quraishi are found and held guilty u/s 12 of Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as the Act) to be none precise Sc.12(1) & (2) of the Act for contravention of Sc.5 of the Act and attempt to contravene Sc.4 of the Act and they all are hereby convicted thereunder........"
7. By the order of sentence dated 9th June 2011, the petitioners have been sentenced to RI for two years and a fine of Rs.5000/- under 3 Criminal Revision No. 428 of 2015 section 12(1) of the Bovine Animal Act with a default stipulation in lieu of fine to undergo SI for six months. They are further convicted and sentenced to SI for one year and a fine of Rs.2000/- under section 12(2) of the Bovine Animal Act with a default stipulation to undergo SI for three months - both sentences are to run concurrently.
8. In Cr. Appeal No.27 of 2011, the appellate Court has recorded the following findings while affirming the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence awarded to the petitioners in G.R Case No.251 of 2006 corresponding to Trial No.279 of 2011:
"Now, if the above provisions particularly section 14 is considered it will show that prosecution must be in a position to produce the prima facie evidence against the accused facing trial. As discussed above with reference to the evidence of P.W.1 who in his evidence has supported the manner of seizure and the condition in which the bovines were seized his evidence will also show that according to the document produced by the accused persons, though there is reference of 29 animals but according to that document they all were cows. In one receipt it was 21 while in another it was 8 but the seizure list will show that the seized animals and the animals shown in the receipt do not tally with each other. Thus there is prima facie material to show that by some illegal or wrongful means the animals are/were being transported. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, the manner of cross-examination will show that it was tried to be impressed that the animals were being taken for sale and purchase since in the Agriculture Produce Marketing Yard at Lohardaga cattle's are sold. It is the categorical statement of P.W.1 that the document do not show the destination to which the cattles were being taken. Thus in any way prima facie material is against the accused persons and in view of the specific provisions under 14 of the act it is burden upon the accused to show that they have not committed any offence or have not violated either section 3 or 4. The defence has also not adduced any evidence to discharge their burden and the evidence adduced by the prosecution prima facie shown the violation of section 3 as also 4.
In the circumstances when the prosecution has proved its prima facie case and the accused has not discharged the burden to show his innocence I do not see that the court below has committed any illegality or irregularity in holding the appellants guilty and considering similarly the sentence also does not appear improper or harsh accordingly it is up held. I do not see any merit in the appeal it is dismissed."
9. Section 2(b) of the Bovine Animal Act defines the expression 'Bovine animals' to mean and include cow, calf, heifer, bull or bullock and section 2(i) defines the expression 'export' to mean to take out to any other place out of the State of Jharkhand.
10. Sections 3, 4, 5 and 12 of the Bovine Animal Act read as under:
4 Criminal Revision No. 428 of 2015
3.Prohibition of slaughter of bovine animal-(A) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or in any usage or custom to the contrary, no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughter or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter any bovine animal;
(B). The State Government may by general or special order and subject to such condition as it may think fit to exempt any person or institute from the operation of this act as allow the slaughter of any bovine animal or the possession of flesh thereof for any medical or research purpose;
4. Prohibition on transport of bovine animal for slaughter- No person shall transport or offer for transport or cause to be transported bovine animals from any place within the State to any place outside the State for the purpose of its slaughter in contravention of the provisions of this Act or with the knowledge that it will be or is likely to be slaughtered.
5. Prohibition of sale, purchase or otherwise disposal of bovine animals- No person shall sell or otherwise dispose of or offer to purchase, sell or otherwise dispose of or cause to be purchased, sold or otherwise dispose bovine animals for slaughter or knowing reason to belief that such cattle shall be slaughtered.
12. Penalty- (1) whoever contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets the contravention of the provisions of section-3 or section-5 or section-6 or section-7 shall on conviction be punished with a rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but may extend to 10 years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.
(2) whoever contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets the contravention of the provisions of sub section (a) and (b) of section 4 shall on conviction be punished with rigorous imprisonments of either description for or term which may extend up to 3 years and with a fine which may extend to 5 thousand rupees. Provided that except for special and adequate reasons to be recorded in the judgment of the court such imprisonment shall not be less than six months and such fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees.
(3) whenever a vehicle is found to have been used in transportation of Cattle or beef contravening any provision of this Act the vehicle shall be forfeited to the State Government.
11. The prosecution case is that ten cows, ten oxen, eight she- calves and one he-calf were loaded in a truck bearing registration no. CG 04 ZC-1292. The Courts below have recorded that the two receipts produced by the accused persons were the purchase receipts for twenty one cows and for eight cows. This discrepancy between the purchase receipts produced by the petitioners which did not bear any signature and the number of bovine animals seized on 31st May 2006 could not be explained by the petitioners. They have failed to produce any evidence to show the destination where the bovine animals were being transported to. PW1 is the only witness who has supported the prosecution but his testimony has remained unshaken in the cross-examination. Now it was for the petitioners to show on a 5 Criminal Revision No. 428 of 2015 preponderance of probability that the bovine animals were not being transported for slaughtering. In view of these facts and also for the reason that the petitioners could not produce evidence of valid transportation of the bovine animals, the plea urged on their behalf must fail.
12. Besides the above, this also has to be kept in mind that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction the High Court shall not interfere with the order of conviction except in very exceptional kind of cases where refusal to interference by the High Court would result in miscarriage of justice.
13. In "State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri" (1999) 2 SCC 452, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"5. .... In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. ..."
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this criminal revision petition and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No.428 of 2015 is dismissed.
15. Vide order dated 13th July 2015 the petitioners were granted bail. Accordingly, the bail bonds furnished by the petitioners are cancelled. They shall surrender before the Court concerned within 4 weeks to undergo the remaining sentence.
16. Let the lower Court records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.
17. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned through "Fax".
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) sudhir