JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Chaurasia, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General appearing along with Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State-opposite party.

2. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Code has been filed with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 18.03.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C-1, Ballia in Criminal Revision No. 28 of 2021 (Yash Mohammad Vs. State), arising out of order dated 09.02.2021 passed in Case Crime No. 360 of 2020 under Sections 3/5-A/8 of The Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, PCSA and Section 11 of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960, PCAA Police Station-Bairiya, District Ballia.

3. The pleadings of the case indicate that pursuant to proceedings initiated with lodging of an F.I.R. dated 21.9.2020 under section 3/5-A/8 of the PCSA and Section 11 of the PCAA registered as Case Crime No. 360 of 2020 at Police Station-Bairiya, District-Ballia, the vehicle stated to be carrying the animals was seized under section 5-A of the PCSA. The applicant claiming to be the owner of the vehicle in question, filed an application before the court of ACJM-I, Ballia, seeking release of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate upon taking into consideration the scheme of the Act and in particular, subsection (7) of Section 5-A, which has been inserted by U.P. Act No. 20 of 2020, rejected the application. Aggrieved, against the order the applicant preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 28 of 2021 (Yash Mohammad Vs. State) and the learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-1, Ballia held that there was no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Magistrate and accordingly, dismissed the revision by order dated 18.03.2021.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has sought to assail the orders passed by the revisional court and the Magistrate by seeking to contend that since the vehicle of the applicant had been confiscated, the courts below have committed an error in rejecting the application for release, ignoring the powers exercisable under section 451 and 457 of the Code. He submits that the property in question i.e. the vehicle which is lying with the authorities is liable to be released. Reliance is sought to be placed on the judgement in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate-I has controverted the aforesaid contention by submitting that the proceedings have been initiated under the PCSA, which is a Special Act, and provides a separate procedure with regard to confiscation and seizure under Section 5-A thereof, and in view of the provisions contained under Section 5 of the Code, the powers under Sections 451 to 457 relating to disposal of property would not be applicable. Accordingly, he submits that cannot be said to be faulted with.

6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions the provisions as contained under Sections 5, 451, 452 and 457 of the Code may be adverted to, and the same are as under :-

"5. Saving.-Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force.

451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.-When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.

Explanation.-