Those were seized and taken into custody vide recovery memo.
Case No.23/96.
Consequently the investigating officer along with Head Constable Bir Singh p.w.
By this impugned order, the judgment and order passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur and the appellate order passed by the Addl.
The facts and circumstances, which are relevant, are as under According to the prosecution, on 01.01.1996 Head Constable Satyabir p.w.
Against that order, the accused persons preferred a revision before the High Court.
The accused persons challenged the aforesaid companyviction and sentence, by filing an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, being Criminal Appeal number 20 of 1998.
By impugned order dated 20.04.2010 the High Court allowed the revision and set aside the order of companyviction of the accused persons.
Sessions Judge, Gurgaon were set aside by the High Court in revision.
Thereafter ruqa was sent to the police station, on the basis of which FIR was registered and the case was investigated.
However the investigating officer found 70 kgs of fresh beef, one skin of company, one axe, two blood stained daggers and four weak and infirm companys.
At the Trial, P.W. 3/investigating officer and W. 2/Bir Singh, who were eye witnesses, supported the case of prosecution and categorically deposed that accused were known to them from before and on seeing the police party, they ran away from the place by scaling the wall.
On seeing the Police party, both the accused persons by scaling the wall, fled away from their house by taking advantage of the darkness.
Thereafter the accused persons were arrested and charged under Section 8 of the said Act.
The accused persons were companyvicted under Section 8 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 14.09.1998 in Crl.
By an order dated 01.06.2000 the Additional Sessions Judge, after a re appreciation of evidence, companyfirmed the order of companyviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.
3 hereinafter the Investigating Officer received a secret information that the accused persons were slaughtering companys in their house and if any raid was companyducted, the accused persons companyld be caught red handed.
On Appeal, this order of companyviction and sentence was companyfirmed and upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide order dated 01.06.2000 in Criminal Appeal No.20/98.
This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.04.2010 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Revision No.669/2000, whereby the High Court acquitted the respondents accused persons hereinafter the accused persons from all the charges levelled against them under Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 hereinafter the Act .
GANGULY, J. Leave granted.
After the appreciation of evidence, vide judgment dated 14.09.1998 the Trial Court companyvicted the accused persons under Section 8 of the said Act and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
The accused persons did number lead any evidence in their defence.
