Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Shamim Ahmed, J.
Chandra Sekhar Rajbhar – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ petition No. - 15 of 2024
Decided On : 21-03-2024
Cow Slaughter Act - Confiscation of Vehicle - Sections 5A(7), 3, 5A, 8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's vehicle was confiscated under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act based on allegations of illegal transportation of cows for slaughter. The petitioner denied the allegations and sought release of the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that keeping the seized vehicle at the police station for a long period was not useful and ordered its release in favor of the petitioner, subject to a bank guarantee and bond for its return when needed by the authorities.
Issues: Confiscation of vehicle under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, and the petitioner's claim for release of the vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for prompt action under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. to avoid keeping seized property at police stations for a long time, and cited previous judgments supporting the release of seized vehicles when ownership is not disputed.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were set aside, and the District Magistrate was directed to release the vehicle in favor of the petitioner, subject to a bank guarantee and bond for its return when needed by the authorities.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Manish Mani Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following relief (s):
ii. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the opposite parties/concerned authorities to release the confiscated/seized (pickup) Vehicle bearing registration No. UP44BT4580 in favour of petitioner.”
3. Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit and in reply thereto learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed the rejoinder affidavit, the same are available on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the informant-opposite party No.6, lodged an First Information Report on 06.06.2023 at 15.20 P.M. with the allegation that on the basis of information received from mukhbhir, the informant/Sub-Inspector of Police Chauki Belwai Police Station Akhand Nagar District Sultanpur, reached the spot i.e. village Meerpur Pratapur and apprehended the person standing nearby the PICKUP vehicle bearing registration No. UP44BT4580, who on enquiry, revealed his name as Suresh Rajbhar son of Ram Khelawan resident of Village Meerpur Pratappur District Sultanpur and stated that he was driver of the said PICKUP Vehicle who had been hired by co-accused Gulele Rajbhar to load the stray cow progenies in a Vehicle to be taken to the state of Bihar for slaughter.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle number UP44BT4580 and on the basis of First Information Report vide Case Crime No. 155/2023, under Section 3/5A/8 Cow Slaughter Act, and under Section 11 Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, Police Station Akhand Nagar, District Sultanpur, proceedings under Section 5-A(7) of the Act against petitioner were initiated and show cause notice dated 24.06.2023 served upon petitioner for calling reply.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner appeared before the District Magistrate, Sultanpur and submitted his reply on 02.08.2023 to show cause notice denying the alleged incident and the allegation leveled against him. Thereafter, the opposite party No.3-District Magistrate, Sultanpur passed the confiscation/seizer order and the aforesaid vehicle of the petitioner has been confiscated/seized vide order dated 11.08.2023.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that thereafter the petitioner against the order dated 11.08.2023 passed by learned District Magistrate, Sultanpur moved an appeal before the opposite party No.2-Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya which has been registered as Case No. 1944/2023: Chandra Sekhar Rajbhar Vs. State of U.P. through District Magistrate”, Computerized Case No. C202304000001944, under Section 5-A(8) Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaugher Act, 1955, but the same has been rejected vide ord
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 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 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....
Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. which is quoted as Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquir....
No permit is required to transport cow and its progeny within the state of Uttar Pradesh.
The court emphasized the need for prompt judicial action in releasing seized vehicles to prevent unnecessary decay and loss to the owner.
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....
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
