Back
rules owner travelling in vehicle carrying 80 kg beef cannot escape
In a significant ruling under the , the held that a vehicle owner who was himself travelling in the conveyance when 80 kilograms of beef was recovered cannot resist by pleading . Justice Sandeep Jain dismissed a writ petition filed by Mohammad Jalaluddin, affirming orders of passed by the District Magistrate and the Commissioner.
A New Vehicle and a Fateful Journey
The petitioner, Mohammad Jalaluddin, was the registered owner of a Bajaj Auto (registration number UP-53-LT-1687) purchased just 11 days before the incident, on . On , police at Khalilabad, Santkabir Nagar, acting on an informer’s tip, stopped the vehicle. Upon search, they recovered four plastic sacks containing approximately 20 kilograms of beef each—totaling 80 kilograms. Two persons, Jallaluddin (the petitioner) and Faiyyaz, were apprehended at the spot. A knife was recovered from each. An FIR was registered under Sections 3/5-A/8 of the Cow Slaughter Act and Section 4/25 of the .
The District Magistrate issued a show-cause notice for of the vehicle under Section 5-A(7) of the Act. The petitioner replied that he was innocent, had been granted bail, and that the vehicle was newly purchased for earning a livelihood by carrying passengers. He claimed that three passengers had hired the vehicle and were transporting the meat without his knowledge or consent. The District Magistrate, however, confiscated the vehicle on . The petitioner’s revision before the Commissioner, Basti Division, was dismissed on , with a direction that the vehicle could be released only upon depositing its market value.
Arguments: vs. Legal Presumption
The petitioner’s counsel argued that there was no credible proof that the vehicle was used for transporting beef, that the petitioner was not present at the time (though the case diary showed otherwise), and that the meat was being carried by passengers without his permission, consent, or authority. It was contended that in the absence of or , was arbitrary and illegal.
The Additional Government Advocate countered that the petitioner was arrested on the spot, the meat was confirmed as beef by the , and that under Section 5-A(10) of the Act, a arises once beef is proved to be in the accused’s possession. The petitioner had failed to rebut that presumption.
Court’s Analysis: and
Justice Jain examined the relevant provisions of the . Section 5-A(6) provides that the driver, operator, and owner of a conveyance confirmed to be related to beef shall be charged with the offence unless it is proved that the vehicle was used by another person without their knowledge and despite all precautions. Section 5-A(10) creates a presumption that a person prosecuted for offences under Sections 3, 5, and 8 has committed the offence if the beef is confirmed by an authorised laboratory, unless the contrary is proved.
The court observed from the case diary that the petitioner was himself travelling in the vehicle when it was seized. The plea that three passengers had hired the vehicle and were in joint possession of the beef was unsupported by any evidence. The petitioner did not examine those passengers or lead any other evidence to rebut the presumption.
“The petitioner could have very well examined those persons to prove that they were allegedly transporting the beef in his vehicle, without his knowledge, but the petitioner has not examined those persons.”
The court further noted that the had confirmed the recovered meat to be beef. Therefore, the presumption under Section 5-A(10) stood attracted and remained unrebutted.
“Since 80 kilograms of beef has been found in the vehicle of the petitioner, there is a legal presumption against him that he has slaughtered the cow for obtaining its meat, which the petitioner has not been able to rebut by leading cogent evidence to the contrary.”
Decision: Upheld, Petition Dismissed
The High Court found no merit in the writ petition. It dismissed the petition and affirmed the orders dated ( by the District Magistrate) and (revision dismissal by the Commissioner). The ruling reinforces that an owner who is present in a vehicle carrying beef cannot avoid by simply claiming ; the places a heavy on the owner to show lack of knowledge and .
The decision serves as a stern reminder that the provisions of the Cow Slaughter Act are strictly enforced, and that vehicles used in the illegal transportation of beef are liable to be confiscated, even if the owner claims the meat belonged to passengers.
