The state cannot legally confiscate a vehicle for the alleged transportation of prohibited meat without conclusive forensic confirmation from an authorized laboratory. Such an arbitrary seizure violates property and economic rights, entitling the owner to the release of the vehicle and compensation for losses incurred during the illegal detention.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Baghpat, in Case No. 1024 of 2024, Computerized Case No. D202411080001024 (State vs. Mohd. Chand), under Section 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, whereby his Mahindra Pickup Registration No.DL-1L-AL1964 has been confiscated in favour of the State for transporting beef of five cows and against the order of the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 14.11.2025 passed in Case No. 2386 of 2025, Computerized Case No. C202511000002386 (Mohd. Chand vs. State of U.P. and others), under Section 5-A(8) of the Act of 1955, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and consequently the order of the District Magistrate, Baghpat dated 16.06.2025 has been affirmed.

2. Factual matrix is that on 18.10.2024 at 1:40 hours while checking suspecting vehicles and persons, the police on getting information, stopped the Bolero Vehicle No.DL-1L-AL1964, in which, on search made beef of five cows were found. According to the FIR, the head and legs of the cows were visible. Accordingly, the police also arrested the persons travelling in the above vehicle after a brief encounter. An FIR in this matter was registered on 18.10.2024 at 5:33 hours, being Case Crime No.347 of 2024, under Sections 109 of the B.N.S., 2023, Sections 3, 5, 5A/8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 25, 27 and 3 Arms Act, 1959 against the accused Chand and Saddam.

3. Since beef was found in the above vehicle, the District Magistrate, Baghpat issued notice to the petitioner for confiscating the above vehicle and after hearing the parties by order dated 16.06.205, the vehicle was confiscated/seized on the ground that it was transporting beef of five cows, which was prohibited. The petitioner challenged the above order by filing appeal, which was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut by impugned order dated 14.11.2025. By way of the instant writ petition, both the above orders have been challenged by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the prosecution case, the vehicle of the petitioner having Registration No.DL- 1L-AL1964 was transporting beef of five cows on 18.10.2024, but as per the report of the veterinary doctor, no conclusive opinion was expressed regarding the origin of the above meat.

5. Learned counsel submitted that the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove that the alleged meat seized from the vehicle of the petitioner was beef and unless and until, this fact was proved beyond doubt, the vehicle of the petitioner cannot be confiscated by the State.

6. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that he has filed his counter affidavit on behalf of the State enclosing meat examination report, which also disclosed that the seized meat was suspected of cow or its progeny. Learned AGA admitted that there is no documentary evidence on record to conclusively prove that the seized meat was beef.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

8. Section 2(a), 5 and 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 reads as under:

"2(a) beef means flesh of cow but does not include