The introduction of Section 5B of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, and its implications on the legality of proceedings initiated against the owner of a vehicle used for the transportation of cow progeny.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. The applicant is an owner of a truck which was involved in carrying cow progeny and was intercepted and accordingly, a case was registered being Case Crime No. 180 of 2020 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and 3/5-A/5-B/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.

2. During investigation, it was found that owner of confiscated vehicle was the applicant and accordingly, proceedings were initiated against him under Section 5A read with Section 5B of Act of 1955. In these circumstances, the applicant has approached the Court of District Magistrate to release the truck.

3. The said truck was on road with a fake registration number plate i.e. UP-70-FT-5844, however, the actual registration number of vehicle was UP-70-FT-7707 owned by applicant. The application for release of truck was dismissed by District Magistrate, Chandauli by impugned order dated 18.11.2021 on the ground that the vehicle owner was failed to take reasonable steps to avoid illegal use of his vehicle.

4. Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for applicant submits that he is the owner of vehicle and the driver of vehicle has misused his permission and he was not directly involved in the offence and he placed reliance upon a judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Kailash Yadav and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2008 (10) ADJ 623, Mohd. Shakib vs. State of U.P. Application u/s 482 No. 23143 of 2021, Noorun Nisha vs. State of U.P. and Others, Application u/s 482 No. 14892 of 2021 and Mohd. Laik vs. State of U.P. and Others, Application u/s 482 No. 20503 of 2021 that mere transportation of cow, bull or bullock from one place to another within Uttar Pradesh or carrying them on foot cannot amount to attempt of slaughtering and this act at the most can be considered to the preparation of slaughtering which is not punishable under Act of 1955. Kailash Yadav (supra) was followed in abovereferred judgments.

5. However, while relying upon Kailash Yadav (supra), the coordinate Bench has missed that Section 5B was introduced in the Act by way of Amendment No. 20 of 2020 i.e. after the judgment was passed in Kailash Yadav (supra) and therefore the coordinate Bench have not considered the ingredients of Section 5B and simply followed Kailash Yadav (supra). For ready reference, Section 5B are quoted herein-below:

“Section 5B - Whoever causes any physical injury to any cow or its progeny so as to endanger the life thereof such as to mutilate its body or to transport it in any situation whereby endangering the life thereof or with the intention of endangering the life thereof does not provide with food or water shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year and which may extend to seven years and with fine which shall not be less than one Lakh rupees and which may extend to three Lakh rupees.”

(Emphasis supplied)

6. Considering the above provision, the proceedings initiated against the applicant under Section 5A (7) which provides as under are legally correct:

“5A. Regulation on transport of cow:

...................

(7) The vehicle by which the beef or cow and its progeny is transported in violation of the provisions of this Act and the relevant rules, shall be confiscated and seized by the law enforcement officers. The concerned District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police will do all proceedings of confiscation and release, as the case may be.”

7. Therefore, the observations of coordinate Bench that Section 5A of Act of 1955 shall not operate as a bar as against the result of vehicle seized under Section 5A of Act of 1955 is incorrect due to amendment whereby Section 5B was inserted.

8. In view of above, no case is made out for interference and the vehicle of applicant was used for the purpose of committing offence under Section 5-A and 5-B also, therefore, the proceedings initiated against the applicant under Section 5A (7) are legally correct as it provides tra