Bangalore District Court
The State By P.S.I vs Kuwait Ali @ Abbas S/O Shakeer Ali on 4 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU
Present
Sri.Patil Veeranagouda S.,
B.Com. LL.M.
VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 4th Day of February, 2022
C.C. No.20629/2015
Complainant:
The State by P.S.I.
J.C.Nagar Police Station
(By Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Versus
Accused: 1. Kuwait Ali @ Abbas s/o Shakeer Ali
Age 42 years,
2. Mosin s/o late Nazapali
Age 46 years,
3. Makbal Ali s/o late Izad Ali
Age 65 years,
all are r/at Hallipura Village
Tondebavi Hobli,
Gowribidanur Taluk
Chikkaballapura Dist.
(By Sri.M.Prabhakar, Advocate)
2 C.C.No.20629/2015
PARTICULARS U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 20629/2015
2. The date of commission 18042015
of the offence
3. Name of the complainant Goutham Sharma
4. Name of the accused Kuwait Ali and others
5. The offence complained of U/s. 11(a) of Karnataka
or proved Prevention of Cow Slaughter
and Cattle Preservation Act
1964, and 192A, 177 of MV
Act and u/s 428, 429, 379
r/w 34 of IPC
6. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his/her examination
7. Final Order As per final order
8. Date of such order 04022022
JUDGMENT
The Police SubInspector of J.C.Nagar Police Station has filed the final report against the accused No.1 to 3 for the 3 C.C.No.20629/2015 offence punishable U/s. 4, 8, 9, 11, 11(a), Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act 1964, under Rule 46 56 of Transportation of Animal Rules 1978 and 192A, 177 of MV Act and u/s 428, 429, 379 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that on 18042015 at about 5.30 a.m., at Jaya Mahal Main Road, the accused No.1 and 2 committed theft of 38 cattle from somewhere and have maiming them and the accused No.3 provided his Canter Goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA51A2176 to transport cows, buffaloes, shebuffaloes without any permit and in cruel manner. Accordingly, CW1 lodged first information before the J.C.Nagar Police. The said police have registered the case, issued FIR against the accused and arrested the accused No.1 and 2 and produced before this court and they were remanded to JC. On 22042015 the accused No.1 and 2 by moving 4 C.C.No.20629/2015 application obtained bail. The accused No.3 being the owner of the vehicle by moving application got released his Goods vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA51A2176. After investigation the IO has filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3.
3. This Court after taking the cognizance issued summons to the accused No.1 to 3. In pursuance of summons the accused No.1 to 3 appeared and accused No.3 by moving application obtained bail.
4. The prosecution papers were furnished to accused No.1 to 3 in compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both the side, my predecessor in office has framed the charges, read over and explained to the accused No.1 to 3, wherein they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5 C.C.No.20629/2015
5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined four witnesses as PW.1 to 4 and got marked thirteen documents as per Ex.P.1 to 13. Inspite of taking coercive steps the prosecution has not secured CW2, 3, 5 and 6. So, the side of the prosecution evidence taken as closed.
6. Thereafter, the accused No.1 to 3 were examined U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. to enable them to explain the incriminating evidence appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and not chosen to lead defence evidence.
7. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record, the points that arise for my determination are;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 18/4/2015 at about 5.30 a.m. at Jaya Mahal Main Road, accused 6 C.C.No.20629/2015 No.1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention transporting 38 cattle in Canter Goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA51A2176 without any permit in cruel manner and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec.11 of Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964?
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention have committed theft of 38 cattle from somewhere and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec.379 r/w 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention have maiming the above said 38 cattle and thereby 7 C.C.No.20629/2015 committed the offence punishable U/sec. 428, 429 IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place in furtherance of their common intention the accused No.3 by providing his Canter Goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA51 A2176 to accused1 and 2 for transporting the cattle by violating the permit and the Rule 46 - 56 of Transportation of Animal Rules 1978 and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec.192(A) and 177 of M.V. Act?
5. What order?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the affirmative
Point No.2 : In the affirmative
Point No.3 : In the affirmative
Point No.4 : In the affirmative
8 C.C.No.20629/2015
Point No.5 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
9. Points No.1 to 3: In order to avoid repetition of facts and discussion, I have taken all these points together for common consideration for sake of brevity.
10. The first informant examined as PW1, the ASI who has stopped the vehicle and caught hold the accused along with vehicle and the cattle produced before the IO as PW2, the Police Constable who was accompanied with the ASI as PW3, the IO who has registered the case and after investigation filed the charge sheet as PW4.
11. PW1 being the first informant deposed that on 1804 2015 at morning hours he received information that from Hebbal some cattle were transporting to Shivajinagar for 9 C.C.No.20629/2015 slaughtering, so himself and CW2 and 3 while waiting near Hebbal Flyover Canter Goods vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA51 A2176 came from Yelahanka covering tarpal by suspecting he informed to the control room and followed the said vehicle, by that time the police of J.C.Nagar by receiving wireless message waiting near TV tower and stopped the said vehicle.
12. He further deposed that by removing the tarpal when they saw there were 30 cattle in the said vehicle and there was no licence for transporting the said cattle. In the said vehicle there were two persons on enquiry they told their names as Kuwait Ali and Mousin, accordingly he has lodged first information as per Ex.P1. Thereafter, the police have conducted seizure mahazar as per Ex.P2 and after counting the cattle in the said canter there were 38 cattle among them two calf were dead. 10 C.C.No.20629/2015
13. He further stated that by filling chilly in the eyes of cattle they were transporting by the accused. He also identified the accused No.1 and 2 and identified the cattle and the Canter Goods vehicle through the photographs as per Ex.P3 to P12.
14. During the cross examination he stated that he is doing social service in Animal Welfare Board of India. He further stated that on receiving the information that the accused were transporting the cattle in the said vehicle he waited and caught hold the accused and the vehicle. He expressed his ignorance about the accused are agriculturist. Further he stated that they are not agriculturist and he do not know about the accused having agricultural lands. He denied the suggestion that for cultivation and for dairying accused were bringing said cattle. He expressed his ignorance from where the accused have purchased the said cattle. He further stated that the 11 C.C.No.20629/2015 accused were transporting the said cattle for slaughtering to Shivajinagar and they caught hold the accused before they reached the slaughter house. He denied the suggestion that he has lodged false case.
15. PW2 being the ASI of J.C.Nagar PS, deposed that on 17 042015 when he was on night duty and PW3 was also accompanied him in Hoysala 102 vehicle and at 5.30 a.m., he received the message from control room so he stopped the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA51A2176 near Chandana TV Station, then CW1 to 3 also came there by car and told that they have given the information to control room. Immediately, he caught hold two persons from the goods vehicle and on verifying the vehicle by removing tarpal he saw there were two steps were made by fixing wooden plates, in that there are 38 cattle were found.
12 C.C.No.20629/2015
16. He further stated that among them 14 seeme cows, 8 she buffaloes, 3 hebuffaloes, 5 nati cows, one ox and 7 calves, among them two calves were dead. He further deposed that on inquiry accused No.1 and 2 told their names and stated that they were transporting the said cattle to the slaughtering house at Shivajinagar and they have no permission. Immediately, he took the accused No.1 and 2 and vehicle along with cattle and produced before the SHO along with his report. He identified the vehicle and cattle by seeing the photographs which were already marked as Ex.P3 to P12 and identified the accused.
17. During the cross examination he denied all the suggestion put to him. He expressed his ignorance about the accused are agriculturist and having agricultural land. However, he denied the suggestion that for cultivation and for dairying accused were bringing said cattle.
13 C.C.No.20629/2015
18. PW3 being the Police Constable who was accompanying with PW2 at the patrolling duty has also stated in the same line as of PW2. During the cross examination he denied the suggestion that there were no cattle in the said vehicle and there is no relation between the cattle and the accused and accused were not in the said vehicle.
19. PW4 being the IO deposed that on 18042015 at 6.00 a.m., PW1 gave first information as per Ex.P1 and by receiving the same he has registered the case and issued the FIR as per Ex.P13. He arrested the accused No.1 and 2 and recorded their voluntary statements and conducted the seizure mahazar as per Ex.P2 wherein he seized 14 seeme cows, 8 shebuffaloes, 3 hebuffaloes, 5 nati cows, one ox and 7 calves, among them two calves were dead and mentioned in P.F.13/2015. He also 14 C.C.No.20629/2015 identified the vehicle and cattle by seeing the photographs as per Ex.P3 to P11.
20. He further stated that thereafter he send the accused to the court and handed over the cattle to the Manager of Gokula Goshale, Karekalpalya, Kyathasandra, Tumakur along with his requisition as per Ex.P14. Thereafter he filed the charge sheet against the accused and identified the accused present before the court.
21. During the cross examination he expressed his ignorance that the accused are having agricultural land at Gowribidanur. He denied the suggestion that the accused for the purpose of dairying purchase and sell the cattle. He further admitted that he has not investigated by going to the village of the accused. However, he voluntaries that accused have stated in their voluntary statement that they were transporting the cattle for 15 C.C.No.20629/2015 slaughtering. He denied the suggestion that without proper investigation only on the basis of false first information filed by PW1 he has filed false charge sheet against the accused.
22. In this case, the PW1 being the first informant has categorically supported the case of the prosecution. He has deposed about filing his first information statement and also conducting mahazar in his presence by the IO and also identified the accused and the vehicle through which the cattle were transporting by the accused by seeing the photographs as per Ex.P3 to P12.
23. The ASI and the Police Constable who were stopped the said vehicle and caught hold the accused No.1 and 2 along with the cattle and the vehicle have also supported the case and identified the accused as well as the vehicle and cattle through photographs as per Ex.P3 to P12.
16 C.C.No.20629/2015
24. In this case the prosecution has not secured CW2, 3, 5 and 6 in spite of taking coercive steps. The advocate for accused contended that the prosecution has not proved the seizure mahazar since it has not got examined the mahazar witnesses. However, the PW1 who being the first informant was very well present at the time of conducting of the seizure mahazar has deposed about the seizure of cattle and the vehicle so also the IO who has seized the same has also deposed about the conducting of seizure mahazar.
25. It is settled principle of law that the evidence of mahazar witness if not available then evidence of Investigating Officer who has conducted mahazar can be relied upon. This proposition of law find support by the decision of our own Hon'ble High Court reported in 2015 (1) KCCR 513 High Court of Karnataka V/s Syed Mohammed Ibrahim. Under 17 C.C.No.20629/2015 such circumstances, only on account of nonexamination of mahazar witnesses it will no affect the case of the prosecution. So, the prosecution has categorically proved the seizure of cattle in the said vehicle.
26. The contention of the accused is that the accused are agriculturist having agricultural land and for the purpose of cultivation and for dairying they are taking the cattle in the said vehicle. However, in support of this contention no piece of evidence was produced by the accused even they have not stated so about the same during their examination made u/s 313 of Cr.P.C.
27. The learned counsel for the accused has suggested similar question to the PW1, 2 and 4 that the accused for the purpose of cultivation and for dairying transporting the cattle in the vehicle but during the cross examination of PW3 the counsel 18 C.C.No.20629/2015 for the accused suggested that there were no cattle in the vehicle and the cattle were noway concerned to the accused and accused are not at all present in the said vehicle. This suggestion shows that the accused are not at all stick up with one defence that they are agriculturist and for the purpose of cultivation and dairying they were transporting the said cattle.
28. The accused are not sure about their case because there is specific allegation of theft of the cattle and transporting same to the slaughtering by the accused. In that case, the accused must have given proper explanation about the transportation of such cattle. Here in this case the accused at one breath suggest that the cattle were taking for their cultivation and dairying at another breath contends that the cattle were no way connected to the accused. This attitude of the accused 19 C.C.No.20629/2015 goes to show that the accused have committed theft of the cattle and they have not given proper account for the same.
29. The accused No.1 and 2 not only committed theft of said cattle but in the vehicle of accused No.3 they were transporting the said cattle dumping in the vehicle in a very cruel manner and thereby the said cattle have subjected to unnecessary pain as well as suffering even two calves were died due to the cruel act of the accused No.1 and 2.
30. If at all the accused have not committed any wrong as alleged by the prosecution they ought to have given their explanation about the ownership or otherwise of the cattle but they have not given any explanation with regard to the allegation made by the prosecution. Even on their examination u/s 313 of CrPC they have neither given explanation nor produced any document to show that they are the agriculturist 20 C.C.No.20629/2015 and have purchased the said cattle and they are taking the same for their own use of cultivation and dairying. If at all they have purchased the said cattle they would have produced the evidence in this regard but they have not produced any evidence. Apart from that if at all they have purchased the cattle for cultivation and for dairying they would not have transport in such a manner so as to cause injury or death of the cattle.
31. So from the evidence of PW1 to 4 the prosecution has proved its case that the accused No.1 and 2 have committed the theft of said cattle and transporting the same in the said vehicle in the very cruel manner and caused death of two calves during the said transportation and also maiming the other cattle by transporting the same in the said vehicle. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the 21 C.C.No.20629/2015 accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offence punishable u/s 379, 428, 429 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 11 of Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act 1964. Hence I answer the above points in the affirmative.
32. Point No.4: The accused No.3 being the owner of the Canter Goods vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA51A2176 got released the said vehicle by executing the indemnity bond before this court. He also not given any explanation during the course of his examination u/s 313 of CrPC. Though accused No.3 was not directly involved in this case but by giving his vehicle to transport the cattle without valid permit and under the contravention of Section 66 of MV Act he has committed the offence punishable u/s 192A of MV Act and by contravening the Rule 46 to 56 of Transportation of Animal Rules 1978 he has committed the offence punishable u/s 177 22 C.C.No.20629/2015 of MV Act. Therefore, I answer the above point in the affirmative.
33. Point No.5: For the foregoing discussion and my findings to the above point, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused No.1 and 2 are hereby convicted of the offence punishable U/s. 11 of Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act 1964 and u/s 428, 429, 379 r/w 34 of IPC.
However, accused No.3 is hereby convicted of the offence punishable u/s 192(A) and 177 of MV Act by acting under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C.
Call later for hearing on sentence. (Dictated to the stenographer transcribed and computerized by her, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this 4 th day of February 2022.) (Patil Veeranagouda S.) VIII Addl. CMM, Bengaluru 23 C.C.No.20629/2015 ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Heard on sentence.
2. Learned Sr.A.P.P. prayed this Court to impose maximum sentence provided for the offence.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused No.1 to 3 are the only bread earning members in their family. They have to look after their family members, who are depending upon the income of the accused No.1 to 3 for their livelihood. They have no criminal antecedent.
The accused No.3 is aged about 65 years, hence prayed the Court to take lenient view and prayed to give benefit under Probation of Offenders Act.
4. Having regard the submission of both the parties admittedly the offence committed by the accused No.1 to 3 is against the cattle in very cruel manner, hence I am of the opinion that the 24 C.C.No.20629/2015 accused are not entitled for the benefit under Probation of Offenders Act.
5. Section 11 of Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act 1964 provides for punishment of imprisonment of 6 months or fine which may extend to ₹1,000/ or both. Section 428 of IPC provides for punishment of imprisonment of 2 years or fine or both. So also Section 429 of IPC provides imprisonment for 5 years or fine or both. Section 379 of IPC provides imprisonment of 3 years or fine or both.
6. Section 192(A) of MV Act shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees but shall not be less than two thousand rupees and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year but shall not be less than three months or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees but shall not be less than 25 C.C.No.20629/2015 five thousand rupees or with both, provided that the court may for reasons to be recorded, impose a lesser punishment. Section 177 of MV Act for the first offence with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, and for any second or subsequent offence with fine which may extend to three hundred rupees.
7. It is settled principle of law that sentence imposed shall respond to the cry of the society. Here in this case, the accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offences against the cattle in very cruel manner.
8. At this juncture it is pertinent to mention decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court State V/s Sanjeev Nanda AIR 2012 SC 3104 wherein it is held, "Law demands that the offender should be adequately punished for the crime, so that it can deter the offender and other persons from 26 C.C.No.20629/2015 committing similar offence. Nature and circumstances of the offence; the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offence; to afford adequate deterrence to the conduct and to protect the public from such crime are certain factors to be considered while imposing the sentence."
9. Keeping in mind the mitigating factors against the accused No.1 to 3 and considering the above ratio it requires some leniency while passing the sentence. The prosecution has not placed any material that the accused have committed the above said offences more than once or they are habitual offenders. Under such circumstances, holding that the accused are first offenders of the above offences, I proceed to pass the following:
27 C.C.No.20629/2015
ORDER The accused No.1 and 2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and also liable to pay fine of ₹500/ each for the offence punishable U/s 11 of Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act 1964. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo SI for 15 days.
The accused No.1 and 2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and also liable to pay fine of ₹1,000/ each for the offence punishable Section 428 of IPC. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo SI for 30 days.
The accused No.1 and 2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for two years and also liable to pay fine of ₹3,000/ each for the offence punishable 28 C.C.No.20629/2015 Section 429 of IPC. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo SI for 60 days.
The accused No.1 and 2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also liable to pay fine of ₹2,000/ each for the offence punishable Section 379 of IPC. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo SI for 30 days.
The accused No.3 shall pay fine of ₹2,000/ for the offence punishable Section 192(A) of MV Act. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for 30 days.
The accused No.3 shall pay fine of ₹100/ for the offence punishable Section 177 of MV Act. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for 5 days.
All the sentences shall run concurrently. 29 C.C.No.20629/2015 Their bail bonds shall stand canceled.
The interim custody of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA51A2176 is made absolute after expiry of the appeal period.
Office is to supply free copy of this Judgment to the accused No.1 to 3.
(Patil Veeranagouda S.) VIII Addl. CMM, Bengaluru ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Goutham Sharma s/o Mohal Lal Sharma PW2 : Basavarajaiah s/o Channabasavaiah PW3 : Shrishyal s/o Shanthaiah Hiremath PW4 : E.S.Mahesh s/o E.N.Sathyanarayana
2. Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : First Information Statement Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P1(b) : Signature of PW4 30 C.C.No.20629/2015 Ex.P2 : Seizure mahazar Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P2(b) : Signature of PW4 Ex.P3 to 12: Photographs Ex.P13 : First Information Report Ex.P4(a) : Signature of PW4 Ex.P14 : Copy of requisition of PW4 to Goshala Ex.P14(a) : Signature of PW4
3. Witnesses examined for the defence:
NIL
4. Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL VIII Addl. C. M. M., BENGALURU 31 C.C.No.20629/2015 Accused No.1 to 3 present.
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order ORDER The accused No.1 and 2 are hereby convicted of the offence punishable U/s. 11 of Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act 1964 and u/s 428, 429, 379 r/w 34 of IPC. 32 C.C.No.20629/2015
However, accused No.3 is hereby convicted of the offence punishable u/s 192(A) and 177 of MV Act by acting under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C.
Call later for hearing on sentence.
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru.
Heard learned APP as well as the advocate for accused.
Call later for order on sentence. VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Heard on sentence.
2. Learned Sr.A.P.P. prayed this Court to impose maximum sentence provided for the offence. 33 C.C.No.20629/2015
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused No.1 to 3 are the only bread earning members in their family. They have to look after their family members, who are depending upon the income of the accused No.1 to 3 for their livelihood. They have no criminal antecedent.
The accused No.3 is aged about 65 years, hence prayed the Court to take lenient view and prayed to give benefit under Probation of Offenders Act.
4. Having regard the submission of both the parties admittedly the offence committed by the accused No.1 to 3 is against the cattle in very cruel manner, hence I am of the opinion that the accused are not entitled for the benefit under Probation of Offenders Act.
5. Section 11 of Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act 1964 provides for punishment of 34 C.C.No.20629/2015 imprisonment of 6 months or fine which may extend to ₹1,000/ or both. Section 428 of IPC provides for punishment of imprisonment of 2 years or fine or both. So also Section 429 of IPC provides imprisonment for 5 years or fine or both. Section 379 of IPC provides imprisonment of 3 years or fine or both.
6. Section 192(A) of MV Act shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees but shall not be less than two thousand rupees and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year but shall not be less than three months or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees but shall not be less than five thousand rupees or with both, provided that the court may for reasons to be recorded, impose a lesser punishment. Section 177 of MV Act for the first offence with fine which may extend to 35 C.C.No.20629/2015 one hundred rupees, and for any second or subsequent offence with fine which may extend to three hundred rupees.
7. It is settled principle of law that sentence imposed shall respond to the cry of the society. Here in this case, the accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offences against the cattle in very cruel manner.
8. At this juncture it is pertinent to mention decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court State V/s Sanjeev Nanda AIR 2012 SC 3104 wherein it is held, "Law demands that the offender should be adequately punished for the crime, so that it can deter the offender and other persons from committing similar offence. Nature and circumstances of the offence; the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offence; to afford adequate deterrence to the 36 C.C.No.20629/2015 conduct and to protect the public from such crime are certain factors to be considered while imposing the sentence."
9. Keeping in mind the mitigating factors against the accused No.1 to 3 and considering the above ratio it requires some leniency while passing the sentence. The prosecution has not placed any material that the accused have committed the above said offences more than once or they are habitual offenders. Under such circumstances, holding that the accused are first offenders of the above offences, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused No.1 and 2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and also liable to pay fine of ₹500/ each for the offence punishable U/s 11 of Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and 37 C.C.No.20629/2015 Cattle Preservation Act 1964. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo SI for 15 days.
The accused No.1 and 2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and also liable to pay fine of ₹1,000/ each for the offence punishable Section 428 of IPC. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo SI for 30 days.
The accused No.1 and 2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for two years and also liable to pay fine of ₹3,000/ each for the offence punishable Section 429 of IPC. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo SI for 60 days.
The accused No.1 and 2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also liable to pay fine of ₹2,000/ each for the offence punishable 38 C.C.No.20629/2015 Section 379 of IPC. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo SI for 30 days.
The accused No.3 shall pay fine of ₹2,000/ for the offence punishable Section 192(A) of MV Act. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for 30 days.
The accused No.3 shall pay fine of ₹100/ for the offence punishable Section 177 of MV Act. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for 5 days.
All the sentences shall run concurrently. Their bail bonds shall stand canceled.
The interim custody of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA51A2176 is made absolute after expiry of the appeal period.
39 C.C.No.20629/2015
Office is to supply free copy of this Judgment to the accused No.1 to 3.
VIII Addl. CMM, Bengaluru