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 Criminal Procedure, providing the petitioner with a statutory alternative remedy of filing a revision.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant writ petition seeks the following relief:-

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the respondent no.2 (Annexure No.1) to the writ petition."

3. A Pick-up, bearing registration number UP61AT9481 which is stated to be registered in the name of the petitioner, was seized as it was found transporting cows. Proceedings under Section 5A(7) of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 were drawn based on the reports of the Sub Inspector dated 16.03.2022. After hearing the parties, the vehicle was confiscated in favour of the State. The vehicle has been directed to be auctioned after its valuation has been duly ascertained.

4. The petitioner is aggrieved by this order dated 11.05.2022 and, therefore, this instant petition.

5. The contention of learned AGA is that the writ petition is not maintainable and that the order impugned is, revisable.

6. For considering the issue raised, it would be relevant to refer Section 5A of the Act which deals with regulation of transport of cows etc. The relevant Section is Sub-section 7 which reads as follows:-

"(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. Also relevant for the purposes of this writ petition is sub-section 11 which is quoted below:-

"(11) Where the provisions of this Act or the related rules in context of search, acquisition, disposal and seizure are silent, the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be effective thereto."

8. Perusal of Sub-section 7 reveals that the District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police has been authorized to deal with proceedings of confiscation and release of a vehicle. No appeal or revision is provided against such order. However, in view of Section 11 which provides that where the Act of relevant rules in context of search, acquisition, disposal and seizure are silent, the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply.

9. Under the circumstances, the submission of learned AGA appears to have force. The order impugned in the writ petition would, therefore, be revisable under Section of Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follows:-

"Section 397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.

(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order,-recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation.-All Magistrates whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub- section and of section 398.

(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.

(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them."

10. Under the circumstances and since the order impugned is a final order, we are constrained to hold that against the impugned order, the petitioner ha