IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PANKAJ BHATIA, J.
Vaseem Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 4956 of 2023
Decided On : 20-11-2023
Confiscation - Cow Slaughter Act - Section 5A(7), Section 2(a), Section 3, Section 5A(1), Section 5A(11), Section 8, Rule 16 - The court discussed the provisions of the Cow Slaughter Act, focusing on the definition of beef, restrictions on transportation of cow, bull, or bullock, and the power of confiscation. It emphasized that confiscation can only be done in violation of the Act and relevant rules, and highlighted the absence of any prohibition or regulation on the transport of beef within the state, leading to the quashing of the confiscation order.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist's motorcycle was confiscated under section 5A(7) of the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, after beef was allegedly found on the motorcycle. The revisionist challenged the confiscation, claiming it violated the Act and Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the confiscation order was not in accordance with the law as the transportation of beef within the state was neither prohibited nor regulated by the Act. It held that the power of confiscation was exercised without any authority of law and quashed the confiscation order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the confiscation under the Cow Slaughter Act, the rights of the revisionist, and the interpretation of relevant provisions regarding transportation of beef.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Cow Slaughter Act and relevant rules, emphasizing that confiscation can only be done in violation of the Act and relevant rules. It also highlighted the absence of prohibition or regulation on the transport of beef within the state.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision, quashed the confiscation order, and directed the release of the motorcycle to the revisionist upon establishing ownership and furnishing a bond of Rs. 5000.
JUDGMENT :
PANKAJ BHATIA, J.
1. The present revision has been filed challenging the order dated 12.12.2022, whereby, the motorcycle of the revisionist bearing No. UP-71-AQ-4187 has been confiscated in exercise of powers under section 5A(7) of the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Cow Slaughter Act).
2. The facts in brief are, that an FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 0042 of 2021 under Section 8/5/3 of the Cow Slaughter Act in terms of the FIR which is contained as Annexure No. 1. It was alleged that four persons who were on two motorcycles were apprehended on being challenged, the said persons fled leaving behind the motorcycles and on the inspection of the motorcycle and the bags kept thereupon, one quintal 200 grams of beef was allegedly recovered from the bags. Subsequently, the ownership of the motorcycle was traced to the revisionist and based upon the said, the revisionist was charged of commission of an offence under Section 3/5A/8 of the Cow Slaughter Act.
3. The revisionist claiming to be the owner of the seized motorcycle, moved an application for release of the vehicle during the pendency of the case vide application dated 6.4.2021 on which a report was called. The Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur submitted his report dated 18.10.2022 stating that the revisionist was chargesheeted for commission of an offence under Section 3/5A/8 of the Cow Slaughter Act and as he was transporting the beef on the motorcycle in question, the motorcycle in question was made a case property and is liable to be confiscated.
4. The District Magistrate empowered by virtue of section 5A(7), proceeded to pass an order of confiscation (impugned ), recording that in terms of the report dated 18.10.2022 given by the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur regarding involvement of the vehicle in question in transportation of beef for which an offence was registered under Section 3/5A/8 of the Cow Slaughter Act, and as the revisionist could not produce any credible evidence to the contrary to the effect that the vehicle was not used for transportation as such, the same was liable for confiscation under section 5A(7) of the Cow Slaughter Act.
5. Counsel for the revisionist argues that the confiscation is contrary to the mandate of the Act and also violates the rights enshrined under Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India as the confiscation is not a proper exercise of power, the order deserves to be quashed.
6. The learned A.G.A. on the other hand, justifies the order by arguing that in terms of the report, the vehicle in question was used for transportation of beef as is clear from the perusal of the FIR which itself records that the beef was being transported from Ajua to be sold at Afoi (both within the State of Uttar Pradesh), as such the power of confiscation was rightly exercised by the District Magistrate, who is duly empowered to do so.
7. To appreciate the issue at hand, it is essential to look into the provisions of the Cow Slaughter Act. Section 2(a) of the Cow Slaughter Act defines beef. Section 2a of the Cow Slaughter Act is being reproduced herein-under:
(a) “beef” means flesh of cow but does not include such flesh contained in sealed containers and imported as such into Uttar Pradesh.
8. Section 3 of the said Act restrains the slaughter of cow, bull or bullock in any place in Uttar Pradesh. Section 5A(1) of the Act provides that no person shall transport or offer for transporting or cause to be transported any cow or bull or Bullock, the slaughter whereof is punishable under the Act from any place within the State to any place outside the State except on a permit issued by the State Government. Section 5A(7) of the Act states that 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 and the District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police is empowered to t
Confiscation of property under the Cow Slaughter Act can only be done in violation of the Act and relevant rules. The absence of prohibition or regulation on the transport of beef within the state re....
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 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....
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 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 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 ....
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.