Back
MOHD. ASLAM
Manjeet Tanwar @ Manjeet Tankar – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MOHD. ASLAM, J.
1. Heard Sri Irfan Raza Khan, learned counsel for revisionist, Sri L.D. Rahbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 11.11.2021 passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra by which the application of the revisionist/applicant for release of Vehicle No. Eicher Canter DL-1-GC-5909 in Case Crime No. 36 of 2021, under Sections 3/5A/8 Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station-Saiyan, District-Agra was rejected.
3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this case are that on 24.03.2021 Sub-Inspector Virendra Kumar along with his companion Constables Lalit Kumar, Ravi Kant Yadav and Saurabh Kumar and Driver Brij Kumar proceeded from Police Station Sainya vide entry in general diary report no. 27 at about 14:10 hours and were busy in patrolling duty and when they reached at Saiyan crossing they were informed by the informer that a red colour Tata Eicher Canter loaded with banned cow skin was coming from the side of Dhaulpur, Rajasthan to Agra. On the information, Sub-Inspector Virendra Kumar started checking the vehicles by putting barrier near Saiyan T
No permit is required to transport cow and its progeny within the state of Uttar Pradesh.
The U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act does not provide an appeal mechanism for confiscation orders, directing that recourse must be sought through the Divisional Commissioner per the notification ....
The court affirmed that special provisions under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, regarding confiscation of vehicles used for illegal transport of beef, take precedence over general pr....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that no permit is required for transportation of cows and its progeny within the State of U.P. under Section 5-A of the U.P. Prevention of Cow S....
The rightful owner of seized property should be allowed to enjoy the property, and the power under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be exercised judiciously and promptly.
Interim custody of seized property under Section 451 of Cr. P.C. should be granted absent rival claims, focusing on preservation pending trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused, prima facie guilty of causing cruelty to the animals, was not entitled to interim custody of the seized cattle.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
