IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.
Kaliya – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And Others – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.6826 of 2023
Decided on : 06-10-2023
Cow Slaughter Act - Confiscation of Vehicle - Section 5-A(7) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 5-A of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, particularly focusing on the requirement of a permit for transportation of cows and its progeny within the State of U.P. The court highlighted the interpretation of the Act, emphasizing that no permit is required for transportation of cows within the state, and the confiscation of the vehicle under Section 5-A(7) was found to be without jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's vehicle was confiscated under Section 5-A(7) of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, based on the allegation of transporting cows and its progeny for slaughtering. The petitioner denied the allegations and claimed false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transportation of cows within the State of U.P. did not require a permit as per the Act. The confiscation order and the appellate order were deemed bad in law and set aside. The opposite parties were directed to release the vehicle forthwith.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner violated any provision of law in transporting cows and its progeny within the State of U.P. and whether the confiscation orders were passed in accordance with the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 5-A of the Act, emphasizing that no permit is required for transportation of cows within the state. It also cited precedent cases to support its interpretation and highlighted the lack of jurisdiction in the confiscation orders.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the confiscation orders were set aside. The opposite parties were directed to release the vehicle forthwith.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 14.3.2023 passed by District Magistrate, Hardoi whereby the petitioner's vehicle UP16H/9922 has been confiscated and the order dated 15.6.2023, passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Mandal, Lucknow by which the appeal filed by him against the order dated 14.3.2023 (Supra) has been rejected.
A further prayer for release of the said vehicle has also been made.
2. Heard Mr. Farhan Alam Osmany, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Alok Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The facts relevant for disposal of the case are that a first information report No.508 of 2022 under sections 3, 5 and 8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (in short, Act) was registered on 2.11.2022 at police station Kachhauna, district Hardoi against named accused persons stating that seven persons were caught red handed while carrying cow and its progeny. Certain incriminating articles such as two motorcycles, two 12 bore pistols, mobile phones etc were also recovered from the named accused persons. DCM truck No.UP16H9922 is registered in the name of the petitioner. Relevant documents relating to ownership of the vehicle in question, such as registration certificate, certificate of fitness, insurance paper etc are on record and in the name of the petitioner.
Since the date of seizure, i.e. 2.11.2022, the DCM vehicle is standing at the police station Kachhauna, district Hardoi. On the basis of the first information report No.508 of 2022, proceedings under section 5-A(7) of the Act against the petitioner were initiated and show cause notice dated 13.12.2022 calling for the reply was served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 17.2.2023 to the show cause notice denying the incident and the allegations levelled against him. In the reply, it has been stated that he is not named accused in the case nor charge sheet has been filed against him. The vehicle in question has not been used for transportation of the cows and its progeny. No beef has been recovered from the vehicle. He is the registered owner of the vehicle and has been falsely implicated as he opposed the illegal extortion committed by the police and thus it is prayed that the vehicle be released.
The District Magistrate vide impugned order dated 14.3.2023 (supra) in exercise of powers under section 5-A(7) has confiscated the vehicle in favour of the State Government while recording a finding that the aforesaid vehicle was being used for slaughtering the cows and its progeny and were being transported for the aforesaid purpose, hence, provisions of the Act have been violated. The appellate court did not find any illegality in the impugned order and upheld the order passed by the District Magistrate.
4. Admitted facts according to prosecution case are that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle No.UP16H9922. The petitioner is not accused in the first information report No.508 of 2022. No charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner and the alleged cows were being transported within the State of U.P.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Nothing has been recovered from the vehicle. The impugned orders have been passed without application of mind. The provisions of Section 5A of the Act are not applicable in the facts of the present case.
6. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, opposed the submission and contended that the impugned orders have been passed strictly in accordance with Section 5-A(7) of the Act. The vehicle was involved in inter-State transportation of cows and its progeny and thus, provisions of Section 5-A of the Act have been violated and therefore, the vehicle has rightly been seized. It is submitted that the cows or its progeny cannot be transported inter state, for the purpose of slaughtering without grant of permit as per section 5-A
Kailash Yadav and others versus State of U.P. and others 2008(10) ADJ 623
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Mudaliar versus State of Gujarat [AIR 2003 SC 638]
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....
No permit is required to transport cow and its progeny within the state of Uttar Pradesh.
The court emphasized the applicability of the specific provisions of the Acts in justifying the confiscation of the vehicle and highlighted the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction in challenging....
Point of Law : In term of mandate of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India any person can be deprived of his property only by and under the procedure established by law.
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 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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the order for confiscation of the vehicle under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 was revisable under Section 397 of the Code of ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.