James, J. - (1.) This is a case under the U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1956) and raises several issues of public importance. The facts as found by the Courts below are as follows. On 14th May 1950 on receipt of information that a cow was being slaughtered in the house of one Phulu oi village Saidpur, police circle Wazirganj in the district of Budaun, a party of police led by Sub-Inspector Ranvir Singh raided Phullu's house at 12 noon. In the inner courtyard Phullu, Alladin and Munshi s/o Wazir were found cutting the carcase of a cow into big pieces while Babu, Dula and Munshi s/o Karim were dividing the large pieces into small ones. Phullu was arrested on the spot but the five others made good their escape. Medical evidence established that the animal had been killed between 4.30 and 6.30 a.m. that day and that it had not been suffering from any disease. The six men were tried before a Magistrate for an offence under Section 8 (1) of the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act on the charge that they on "14-5-56 at 1 p.m. in village Saidpur, P. S. Wazirganj, in the house of Phullu slaughtered a cow". They pleaded not guilty. The learned Magistrate found the six accused guilty and sentenced them to eighteen months' rigorous imprisonment each, without giving a word of reason for the heavy sentences. The six took an appeal to the Sessions Judge of Budaun, and in their petition of appeal raised three points: (1) that the order of the Magistrate was bad in law and opposed to commonsense; (2) that the order was against the weight of the evidence; and (3) that the sentence was "too excessive'. The learned Judge after hearing the parties upheld the conviction and sentences and dismissed the appeal, and it should be noted that although the third ground of appeal specifically related to the amount of sen- tence he did not give any reason whatever for affirming the sentences passed by the Magistrate.
(2.) Phullu submitted to the Sessions Judge's order, but the other five convicted men filed the present Revision before the High Court. The learned Application Judge admitted it only on the question of sentence. The record of the case was accordingly sent for and the Revision is before me for disposal.
(3.) Every criminal trial raises two issues, both important: first, is the accused person guilty; second if guilty what amount of punishment should be awarded to him? The law leaves the measures of punishment to the discretion of the Court. Nevertheless, it insists that the discretion be used judicially and not arbitrarily. This implies that it is the bounden duty of the Court to apply its mind to the question and decide it after the due consideration of all relevant circumstances. Unfortunately, experience shows that this is seldom done by subordinate Courts. This is specially so with Sessions Judges sit-ting in appeal; in case after case this Court finds the trial Courts' sentence confirmed by the Sessions Judge without a word of reason being given, although the petition of appeal invariably contains a clause complaining of the harshness of the sentence. Indeed, when a Sessions Judge decides to uphold a conviction his duty requires him to examine the sentence passed: if excessive, he ought to reduce it; if appropriate, he should confirm it if absurdly lenient he should report it for enhancement. But, like all judicial orders, the order mustf be supported with reasons. Also, this Court isl getting concerned at the punishment which subordinate Courts have been thoughtlessly inflicting on persons found guilty of a breach of the Cow Slaughter Act, and has been reducing the imprisonment to the period already undergone. The instant case is an illustration of the present trend and it is worthy of note that neither the trial Magistrate nor the Sessions Judges has cared to give any reason for the obviously heavy sentences. This is particularly to be deplored in the case of the Sessions Judge, before whom the third ground of appeal objected specifically to the excessive punishment. It would appear that many subordinate Courts are not aware of the principles which underlie the assessment of the quantum of punishment. It would therefore be rewarding to examine judicial authority on the object of punishment and the factors which have to be kept in mind in fixing its quantum.;