Hon’ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—“Whether transporting or carrying the cow, bull or bullock within the State with the intention of slaughtering constitutes any offence under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (in short ‘the Cow Slaughter Act’)”, is the cardinal question that falls for consideration in this revision, by means of which the order dated 7.1.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Court No. 1, Allahabad in Crl. Misc. Application No. 345/12 of

2005 (State v. Suffiyan and others), has been challenged, whereby the learned

magistrate has declined to release truck No. U.P. 70-S/8631 in favour of the revisionists.

2. The facts emerging from the record leading to the filing of this revision are that an FIR was lodged by S.I. Atul Kumar Singh on 29.12.2004 at P.S. Nawabganj (Allahabad), where a case under Section 3/8 Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (in short ‘the Animals’ Cruelty Act’) was registered at Crime No. 777 of 2004 against (1) Sufiyan s/o Mujjan (2) Atiq s/o Babu and (3) Bachau s/o Ishaq. Shorn of unnecessary details, the allegations made in the FIR, in brief, are that on getting information from an informer, S.I. Atul Kumar Singh with the help of other police personnel arrested the accused Sufiyan on 29.12.2004 at about 5.15 p.m. near Ram Janaki Temple situated within the limits of village Samai Nawabganj district Allahabad. He was driving truck No. U.P.70-S/8631 in which 19 bullocks and one cow were loaded. Two persons namely Atiq s/o Babu and Bachau s/o Ishak were also arrested, who were standing in the truck catching the animals. The truck and animals were seized by the police and brought to P.S. Nawabganj, where aforesaid case was registered against the above named accused. The revisionists Asfaq Ahmad and Aftab Ahmad both sons of Mohammad Sami residents of village Mazid Nagar Glass Factory, P.S. Dhumanganj, Allahabad, who are the registered owners of aforesaid truck, moved an application to release truck in their favour. That application has been rejected by the Court below vide impugned order. Hence this revision.

3. When the case was taken up in the revised list, the counsel for the revisionists did not come. Hence I have heard arguments of learned AGA for the State. The revision is being decided on merit after going through the record.

4. It was contended by the learned AGA that one cow and 19 bullocks were being transported to Bihar by the accused Suffiyan, Atiq and Bachau in truck No. U.P. 70-S/8631 for the purpose of slaughtering and hence the Court below did not commit any illegality in declining to release the truck in favour of the revisionists, as the said truck was being used for illegal smuggling of cow and bullocks out side the State for the purpose of slaughtering.

5. Having given my best of consideration to the submissions made by the learned AGA, I find no force in the aforesaid contention. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Investigating Officer S.I. Saryu Prasad Singh, but no paper has been filed to show that the animals which were loaded in truck No. U.P. 70-S/8631 were being transported to Bihar. No goods receipt was found on the accused persons or in the truck to indicate that the animals were booked for Bihar. The truck and cow/bullocks were seized in District Allahabad which is situated at a far distance from the border of Bihar State. Therefore, merely on the basis of alleged confession of the accused before the police, it cannot be inferred that the seized animals were being transported to Bihar. Admittedly no animal was found dead or maimed in the truck. Any injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death was also not inflicted to any animal. Keeping these facts in view, let us now examine whether any offence under Cow Slaughter Act is made out in this case.

6. The Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act was enacted to prohibit and prevent the slaughter of cow and its progeny in Uttar Prad