SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(All) 817

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Ashutosh Srivastava, J.
Pramod Kumar Yadav - Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. and 2 Others - Opposite Party
Criminal Revision No. 2266 of 2022
Decided On : 06-07-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Revisionist : Narendra Deo Shukla, Vivek Shukla.

The judgment establishes the principle that confiscation of property should not be arbitrary and should only occur after the allegations have been established, in line with the fundamental rights provided under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

Confiscation - Cow Slaughter Act - 1955 - Section 3/5A/8 - The judgment discusses the confiscation order of a truck under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Section 3/5A/8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, and Section 11 of the U.P. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The court analyzed the provisions of the Cow Slaughter Act, particularly Section 5A(7), and highlighted the requirement for transportation of cattle outside the state for the application of the section. The court emphasized the need for the allegations of the F.I.R. to be established before passing an order of confiscation, and the importance of not depriving a person of their property arbitrarily, in line with Article 19(1)(g) and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

Fact of the Case:

The revisionist's truck was confiscated pursuant to an F.I.R. under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Section 3/5A/8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, and Section 11 of the U.P. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The revisionist contended that the criminal proceedings were pending, and the confiscation was arbitrary and violated their fundamental rights.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the confiscation order could not be sustained as the allegations of the F.I.R. were yet to be established, and the confiscation violated the fundamental right of the revisionist to carry on their trade, occupation, or business.

Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the confiscation order under the Cow Slaughter Act, the pending criminal proceedings, and the violation of fundamental rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the allegations of the F.I.R. to be established before passing an order of confiscation and highlighted the importance of not depriving a person of their property arbitrarily, in line with Article 19(1)(g) and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

Final Decision: The confiscation order of the District Magistrate dated 17.01.2022 was set aside, and the revision was allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Narendra Deo Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The challenge in the present revision is the confiscation order dated 17.01.2022 of the revisionist's truck bearing No.UP 44 AT 4492 pursuant to F.I.R. dated 28.09.2021 being Case Crime No.266 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 3/5A/8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Cow Slaughter Act") and Section 11 of the U.P. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Police Station Gopiganj, District Bhadohi.

3. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of the first information report is still pending in the criminal court. It has not culminated and it is yet to be established that the offence under the Cow Slaughter Act is made out. Further contention is that the truck of the revisionist is lying at the police station in an open space and would be destroyed due to lack of maintenance. Learned counsel further contended that the order impugned dated 17.01.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhadohi, is arbitrary and illegal in as much as the revisionist has not committed any offence under the Cow Slaughter Act. Further submission is that the revisionist himself is the owner and driver of the truck, which is the only source of livelihood and its confiscation violates Article 19(1)(g) and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that the vehicle confiscated is involved in illegal transportation of cow for the purposes of slaughter without any valid permit to another State, which is in violation of Cow Slaughter Act. Learned A.G.A. further contended that proceedings towards confiscation of the offending vehicle and also criminal prosecution against the accused are parallely maintainable.

5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

6. Confiscation order dated 17.01.2022 has been passed by the District Magistrate, Bhadohi, in exercise of powers under Section 5A(7) of the Cow Slaughter Act.

7. The present order dated 17.01.2022 has been passed in a case instituted on the police report dated 29.09.2021 submitted by the Inspector In-charge/Circle Officer, Gyanpur, Bhadohi, forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Bhadohi stating inter-alia that on 28.09.2021, Sub Inspector, Sri Ram Narayan Yadav has intercepted the truck being Truck No.UP 44 AT 4492 and has recovered 20 cows from the truck. Thereafter, Case Crime No.266 of 2021 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Sections 3/5A/8 Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of the U.P. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and prayed for its confiscation.

8. 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) of the Cow Slaughter Act, 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.”

9. Section 3 of the 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.

10. Section 5A of the said Act, which is useful for the adjudication provides for the regulation on transport of cow. Section 5A is quoted below:-

    “Section 5A. Regulation on transport of cow, etc.-(1) No person shall transport or offer for transport or cause to be transported any cow, or bull or bullock, the slaughter whereof in any place in Uttar Pradesh is punishable under this Act, from any place within the State to any place outside the State, except under a permit issued by an officer authori

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top