- (1.) This revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 22.1.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the discharge application of the revisionists in Case No. 5610 of 2012, under section 3/8 of Cow Slaughter Act, PS Mau Darwaza, district Farrukhabad.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on an information that some persons have brought some oxen for slaughtering in the field of one Avnish, some villagers namely Shri Ram, Ram Pal singh, Ram Swaroop and Suresh rushed to the spot and apprehended the accused-revisionists along with oxen and brought to the police station and FIR was lodged. After investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the revisionists under section 3/8 of Cow Slaughter Act.
(3.) Earlier the revisionists have approached this Court for quashing of the entire proceeding of Case No. 5610 of 2012 by filing application under section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 37917 of 2014. This Court vide order dated 10.9.2014 while refusing the prayer of the revisionists for quashing the entire proceedings, had provided that in case the revisionists move an appropriate application for discharge through counsel before the concerned Court below within a period of one month from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously. Pursuant to the order of this Court, discharge application moved by the revisionists has been rejected by the court below by the impugned order, which is under challenge in the present revision. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record of the case Placing reliance upon the judgement of this Court in Ashoo Vs State of UP, 1997 LawSuit(All) 168, learned counsel for the the revisionists submits that even if the allegations against the revisionists are accepted to be true, it would, at best, be a case of preparation to commit the crime and since preparation of crime is not punishable, the criminal case has wrongly been registered against the revisionists. Learned counsel for the revisionists further contended that while rejecting the application of the revisionists under section 239 Cr.P.C., learned court below has not considered the facts that the revisionists are the bonafide purchaser of the oxen in question.;