Hon’ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—"Whether carrying the cow, bull or bullock from one place to another place within the State of Uttar Pradesh for the purpose of slaughtering constitutes any offence under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (in short, ‘the Cow Slaughter Act’)?” is the main question that falls for consideration in this revision, which has been preferred against the order dated 4.1.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ghazipur.

2. By the impugned order, the Court below has declined to release the bullocks seized in case crime No. 1062 of 2004 under Sections 3, 5-A, 8 of Cow Slaughtering Act and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (in short, ‘the Animals’ Cruelty Act’), P.S. Nonahra, District Ghazipur.

3. The facts emerging from the record leading to the filing of this revision are that an FIR was lodged by S.I. S.Tiwari on 20.12.2004 at 10.00 a.m. at P.S. Nanahra (Ghazipur), where a case under Sections 3, 5-A and 8 of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of Animals’ Cruelty Act was registered at crime No. 1062 of 2004 against (1) Radhey Shyam Yadav, (2) Subhash Navik, (3) Baladin Pasi, (4) Ramesh Yadav; and (5) Chottey Lal Yadav. Shorn of unnecessary details, the allegations made in the FIR, in brief, are that on getting information from an informer, S.I. S. Tiwari with the help of other police personnels arrested the accused named above on 20.12.2004 at 6.15 a.m. near village Shankerpur within the limits of P.S. Nanahra, District Ghazipur. The accused persons were carrying fifteen bullocks, which were seized by the police. It is alleged that the bullocks were being carried by the accused to Bihar for the purpose of slaughtering. The Revisionists moved an application on 24.12.2004 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur for release of the bullocks with the averments that they are the owners of seized bullocks, which they had purchased for agriculture purpose from District Jaunpur and they had engaged Radhey Shyam Yadav, Subhash Navik, Baladin Pasi, Ramesh Yadav and Chottey Lal on labour for carrying the bullocks, which were seized by the police when its demand of illegal money was not fulfilled and the accused persons were also arrested. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Ghazipur vide impugned order has declined to release the bullocks in favour of the Revisionists assuming that the bullocks were being carried to Bihar for the purpose of slaughtering. Hence, this revision.

4. 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.

5. It was contended by the learned AGA that the seized bullocks were being carried to Bihar for the purpose of slaughtering by the accused persons named in the FIR and hence the learned Court below did not commit any illegality in declining to release the said cattle in favour of the Revisionists.

6. Having given my best of consideration to the submission made by the learned AGA, I find no force in the said contention. The Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act was enacted to prohibit and prevent the slaughter of cow and its progeny in Uttar Pradesh. Slaughter has been defined in Section 2 (d) which reads thus :

"Slaughter’ means killing by any method whatsoever and includes maiming and inflicting of physical injury which in the ordinary course will cause death.”

7. Section 3 of Cow Slaughter Act lays down that “no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered, or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter, a cow, bull or bullock in any place in Uttar Pradesh, anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or any usage or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.”

8. Section 5-A of Cow Slaughter Act although is not relevant for the present case, but it will be useful to have a look on this section also, which read thus :

"5-A. Regulation