Allowed

Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2023A227/4636/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that transporting cows within Uttar Pradesh without a permit is not an offence under Section 3 or 5(A) as the Act prohibits inter-state transport for slaughter. Set aside confiscation order and directed release of the vehicle pending sufficient evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; orders dated 27.12.2021 and 21.04.2022 set aside; vehicle directed to be released forthwith.

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs State of U P and 2… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:169498

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4636 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Singh Sengar,Amit Singh,Km Omprabha,Km Preete

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶6

Heard Km. Preeti, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 27.12.2021 passed by District Magistrate, Ballia in Case No. 00804 of 2021 (State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav ) by which the vehicle of petitioner was confiscated and order dated 21.04.2022 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.- 1, Ballia in Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2022 dismissing the criminal revision.

¶8

The brief facts of the case is that on the information received from informant that the vehicle Tata Intra V-10 is carrying animals for the purpose of cow slaughtering without valid permit and on that information Sub-Inspector Awdhesh Singh of Police Station- Chitbada Gaon, District- Ballia along with other constables on 14.04.2021 caught the aforesaid vehicle and recovered two cows. Driver and one other person were arrested and a first information report was registered against the driver Durgesh Ram and one Brijesh Yadav, as Case Crime No.- 0040 of 2021 under Section 3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as Cow Slaughter Act) and Section 11 of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as Cruelty to Animals Act) in Police Station- Chitbada Gaon, District- Ballia. The petitioner, who is registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.- U.P. 60 AT 8137 having Chasis No.- MAT535072MYB05983 and Engine No.800CCDI02BYX511546 had moved an application for release of vehicle, which was dismissed by the District Magistrate, Ballia vide order dated 27.12.2021 and the vehicle was confiscated in favour of State. The Criminal Revision No.- 12 of 2022 preferred by petitioner against the order dated 27.12.2021 was also dismissed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-Ist, Ballia vide judgement and order dated 21.04.2022.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is registered owner of vehicle bearing No.- U.P. 60 AT 8137, which was registered on 07.07.2021 after seizure having Chasis No.- MAT535072MYB05983 and Engine No.- 800CCDI02BYX511546. Copy of registration certificate has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the petition. The vehicle of the petitioner was not used for carrying any animal for slaughtering and it has been detained by the concerned police station, as the illegal demand was not fulfilled by his driver.

¶10

The driver and other co-accused Brijesh Yadav have already been released on bail. The vehicle of petitioner was never used for transportation of animals from one place of Uttar Pradesh to another State and the petitioner has not committed any offence under the provisions of Cow Slaughter Act and the vehicle of the petitioner has wrongly been confiscated by the District Magistrate. The vehicle of petitioner is lying in open yard of police station and its condition is deteriorating day by day. Lastly it is submitted that there is no dispute regarding ownership of the vehicle.

¶11

On the other hand learned A.G.A. has submitted that the vehicle of the petitioner was used for transportation of cow and two cows were recovered from the vehicle at the time of seizure and the District Magistrate after found that the vehicle was used in violation of provisions of Cow Slaughter Act has rightly confiscated the vehicle. The Revisional Court has also rightly dismissed the criminal revision preferred by petitioner and no ground for interference is made out and the present petition for the release of vehicle filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

Having Considerd the rival submissions of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶13

For deciding the present controversy, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of Cow Slaughter Act.

¶14

The word 'slaughter' is defined in Section 2(d) of Cow Slaughter Act, which is reproduced hereinbelow-:

¶15

"2(d)- 'slaughter' means killing by any method whatsoever and includes maiming and inflicting of physical injury which in the ordinary course will cause death;"

¶16

The cow slaughter is prohibited in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Section 3 of Cow Slaughter Act is reproduced hereinbelow-:

¶17

"3. No person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered, or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter, a cow, bull or bullock in any place in Uttar Pradesh, anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or any usage or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding."

¶18

Section 5(A) of Cow Slaughter Act provides for regulation on transport of Cow, etc., which is reproduced hereinbelow-:

¶19

"5-A(1). No person shall transport or offer for transport or cause to be transported any cow, or bull or bullock, the slaughter whereof in any place in Uttar Pradesh in punishable under this Act, from any place within the State to any place outside the State, except under a permit issued by an officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf by notified order and except in accordance with the terms and conditions of such permit.

¶20

(2) Such officer shall issue the permit on payment of such fee not exceeding [five hundred rupees] for every cow, bull or bullock as may be prescribed:

¶21

Provided that no fee shall be chargeable where the permit is for transport of the cow, bull or bullock for a limited period not exceeding six months as may be specified in the permit.

¶22

(3) Where the person transporting a cow, bull or bullock on a permit for a limited period does not bring back such cow, bull or bullock into the State within the period specified in the permit, he shall be deemed to have contravened the provision of sub-section (1).

¶23

(4) The form of permit, the form of application, therefore, and the procedure for disposal of such application shall be such as may be prescribed.

¶24

(5) The State Government or any officer authorised by it in this behalf by general or special notified order, may, at any time, for the purpose of satisfying itself, or himself, as to the legality or propriety of the action taken under this section, called for and examine the record of any case and pass such orders thereon as it or he may deemed fit.

¶25

[(6) Where the said conveyance has been confirmed to be related to beef by the competent authority or authorised laboratory under this Act, the driver, operator and owner related to transport, shall be charged with the offence under this Act, unless it is not proved that the transport medium used in crime, despite all its precautions and without its knowledge, has been used by some other person for causing the offence.

¶26

(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.

¶27

(8) The cow and its progeny or the beef transported by the seized vehicle shall also be confiscated and seized by the law enforcement officers. The concerned District Magistrate/Commissioner will do all proceedings of the confiscation and release, as the case may be.

¶28

(9) The expenditure on the maintenance of the seized cows and its progeny shall be recovered from the accused for a period of one year or till the release of the cow and its progeny in favour of the owner thereof whichever is earlier.

¶29

(10) Where a person is prosecuted for committing, abetting, or attempting to an offence under Sections 3, 5 and 8 of this Act and the

¶30

beef or cow-remains in the possession of accused has been proved by the prosecution and transported things are confirmed to be beef by the competent authority or authorised laboratory, then the court shall presume that such person has committed such offence or attempt or abetment of such offence, as the case may be, unless the contrary is proved.

¶31

(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.]"

¶32

From the bare perusal of aforesaid provisions of Cow Slaughter Act, it is apparent that no permit is required for transportation of cow or its progeny within the State of Uttar Pradesh. There is no evidence or materials before the District Magistrate except confession of driver that the cows were transported to State of Bihar for slaughtering.

¶33

This court in the case of Kailash Yadav and other Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2009(64) ACC 6 has held that mere transporting the cow, bull or bullock or carrying them from one place to another place within the State of Uttar Pradesh cannot be said to be any offence under the Cow Slaughter Act.

¶34

The Hon'ble Apex Court has also laid down certain guide lines for the release of vehicle in the Case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 638 . Relevant paragraph no. 17 is quoted hereinbelow-:

¶35

"17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles."

¶36

In the present case there is no evidence or material before the District Magistrate that the cows were transported from State of Uttar Pradesh to the other State for slaughtering. The cows were healthy and alive and no injury was caused to any of them. There is nothing on record to show that the cows were offered to any person for slaughtering. No cow or its progeny in the vehicle was found killed. There is nothing in the F.I.R. as well as counter affidavit filed on behalf of State to show that the accused persons had made any attempt to slaughter any cow. Thus there was no contravention of Section 3 or Section 5(A) of Cow Slaughter Act and no offence punishable under Section 8 of this Act would be made out. The District Magistrate, had erred in refusing to release the vehicle and to confiscate the same in contravention of Cow Slaughter Act, whereas, there was no sufficient evidence that the cows were transported for slaughtering to any other State. The Revisional Court without considering the relevant provisions of Cow Slaughter Act and without recording any finding that

¶37

the cows were transported in contravention of provisions of Cow Slaughter Act had rejected the Criminal Revision preferred by petitioner.

¶38

In view of above, the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by petitioner is allowed and the order dated 27.12.2021 passed by District Magistrate, Ballia and order dated 21.04.2022 passed by Revisional Court are set aside. The District Magistrate, Ballia is directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner bearing No.- U.P.-60 AT 8137 having Chasis No. MAT535072MYB05983 and Engine No.- 800CCDI02BYX511546 in favour of petitioner forthwith.

¶39

Order Date :- 22.8.2023 Virendra

¶40

Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Nath Rai and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kumari Shivani (Corpus) and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ajay Awasthi Alias Ajay Kumar Awasthi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hashim Ali Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mohd. Hassan Kaadri Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Ayushi Gautam and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others