Allowed

Faisal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2023CRLR/2059/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision against confinement orders under UP Cow Slaughter Act. High Court held no permit is needed for transporting cows within Uttar Pradesh. Pioneering precedent Kailash Yadav cited. Confiscation orders set aside; vehicle release directed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 10.1.2023 and 27.2.2023 set aside; concerned court directed to release the vehicle forthwith.

Faisal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:193192

¶2

Court No. - 50

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2059 of 2023

¶4

Revisionist :- Faisal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Subhash Chand,Babu Lal Ram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 27.2.2023 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh whereby the appeal filed by the present revisionist against confiscation order dated 10.1.2023 passed by ADM (Administration), Aligarh in Case No.4720 of 2022 (State vs. Ansar Beg and others), under Section 5 (A) of UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Iglas, District Aligarh has been confiscated in favour of the Government and SHO of Police Station Iglas has been directed to carry out the sale proceeding with regard to said truck with immediate effect and get the sale proceeds deposited in State account and receipt thereof will be filed before the Court within one month.

¶8

The brief facts relevant for the present revision are that according to the report of SHO, Iglas, dated 30.6.2022 said truck was seized by the police while transporting eight number of progeny of cow (bull and bullocks), which were taken for slaughtering by said truck. The accused Ansar Beg, Faisal Beg and Puneet were impleaded as accused in the case and vide Crime No.134 of 2022, under Sections 3/5(A)/8 of UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. The notice of confiscation was issued to named accused persons who appeared before the court and filed their joint reply on 19.11.2022 where the stand is taken by them is that Ansar Beg is driver of said vehicle. The bull/bullocks were being transported by said truck with a view to load bricks from a brick klin. The cattle loaded on the vehicle were not treated with cruelty. No physical injury was found on their examination. No weapon or object of slaughtering like knife or rope etc were recovered from the vehicle.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is owner of said truck, which has been confiscated by orders of

¶10

Additional District Magistrate dated 10.1.2023. All the papers of said vehicle like Form 53, Permit issued by Transport Department, Rajasthan, Fitness Certificate, Driving Licence of the driver etc. were produced before the ADM but in spite of releasing the same in favour of the registered owner, the same was directed to be confiscated. The revisionist and co-accused are enlarged on bail in said case by orders of competent court. Grounds taken in release application moved by the revisionist before the learned ADM were not duly considered and even the appellate court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the revisionist and co-accused against confiscation order passed by learned ADM in cursory and summary manner placing reliance on police version only. Copies of relevant papers with regard to vehicle in question are filed as Annexure No.1 to the memo of revision. In brief counter affidavit dated 16.6.2023, a report of SHO concerned has been filed, which reveals that the sale proceedings with regard to confiscated vehicle in question has not been carried out pursuant to order passed by learned ADM as yet. On 29.3.2022, vehicle in question i.e. Tata Truck No.RJ05GA 6127 of the revisionist was booked in Rs.46000/regarding which receipt was obtained by the revisionist and aforesaid vehicle was obtained by one Puneet, Son of Hakim Singh for sending of labour at brick-clin in district Kushinagar whereas misusing terms and conditions of the revisionist, Puneet has loaded bull in the vehicle of the revisionist. He also submitted that due to seizure of the truck, revisionist is suffering from financial loss and the efficacy of truck is deteriorating day by day. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned orders passed by courts below may be set aside and appropriate orders may be passed with regard to release of truck. Learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on a judgement of Apex Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Mudaliar vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638 as well as a reported judgement of this Court passed on 25.8.2022 in Application U/S 482 No.23123 2021 (Mohd. Shakib vs. State of U.P.).

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in impugned orders passed by the learned courts below. The impugned orders are well reasoned and there is statutory provision with regard to confiscation proceeding in Cow Slaughter Act. Learned ADM was empowered to pass confiscation order with regard to said vehicle and it is seized by transporting progeny of cow and a case under Sections 3/5A/8 of Cow Slaughter Act is registered against the revisionist alongwith co-accused persons. According to the FIR version, the truck was seized on 31.3.2022 and two persons namely Ansar Beg and Puneet were caught by police while they were

¶12

trying to run away by noticing police team and one person successfully made good escape, whose name was revealed by the accused persons as Faisal Beg, the owner of the truck. Eight number of progeny of cow were said to be recovered from the said truck. However, no mark of injury was found on the person of the cattle recovered from the truck. The accused persons are alleged to have transporting the said vehicle for slaughtering. The truck was seized within the limit of police station Iglas, District Aligarh.

¶13

I have gone through the record of the case and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties in present revision, and find that the question involved in this case is that whether the revisionist has violated any provisions of law in transporting cow and its progeny by the vehicle in question and the impugned orders of the Additional District Magistrate, Aligarh dated 10.1.2023, confiscating the said vehicle and the impugned order passed by District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh dated 27.2.2023, dismissing the appeal of the revisionist, are according to law or not.

¶14

For deciding the instant revision, it is necessary to go through the relevant provisions of UP Cow Slaughter Act. Section 5-A of the Act provides for regulation on transport of cow, etc., which reads as under:-

¶15

"5-A. Regulation on transport of cow, etc.- (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 is 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.

¶16

(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:

¶17

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.

¶18

(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).

¶19

(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.

¶20

(5) The State Government or any officer authorised by it in this behalf by

¶21

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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

(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 beef or cowremains 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.

¶27

(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.]"

¶28

Now, it is to be considered whether permit is required for transportation of the cow or its progeny within the State of Uttar Pradesh. This question came up for consideration before this Court in Criminal Revision No. 131 of 2005 (Kailash Yadav and Others vs. State of U.P. & others, 2008(10) ADJ 623) , wherein it is held that no permit is required for transportation of cow or its progeny within the State of Uttar Pradesh. Sub-section 5A (6 to 8) provides for confiscation and release of vehicle by which beef or cow and its progeny is transported in violation of the provision of this Act and the relevant rules. Sub-section 5A (6 to 8) reads as follows:-

¶29

(6) Where the said conveyance has been confirmed to be related to beef by the competent authority or authorised laboratory under this Act, the

¶30

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.

¶31

¶32

¶33

From the perusal of sub-section (1 to 5) of Section 5A of this Act and the law laid down by this Court in Kailash Yadav and Others vs. State of U.P. & Others (supra), it is abundantly clear that there is no need of permit to transport cow and its progeny within the state of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, transportation of a cow and its progeny within the state of Uttar Pradesh is not a violation of any of the provisions of the Cow Slaughter Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the seized vehicle in question was used in violation of Section 5A (1) to (11) or any provisions of the Cow Slaughter Act, and therefore, police has no power or jurisdiction to seize or confiscate the vehicle in question. The Additional District Magistrate, Aligarh has passed the impugned confiscation order dated 10.1.2023 in contravention of the law, as no permit is required to transport cow and its progeny within the state of Uttar Pradesh. In above circumstances, the impugned order dated 10.1.2023 passed by Additional District Magistrate, Aligarh is without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set-aside. Likewise, the appellate court has not considered the relevant provisions of Section 5A of Cow Slaughter Act while dismissing the criminal appeal of the revisionist, therefore, the impugned order dated 27.2.2023 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh is also against the provisions of law and is liable to be set-aside.

¶34

Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is allowed . The impugned orders dated 10.1.2023 passed by Additional District Magistrate, Aligarh and the order dated 27.2.2023 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh are, hereby, set-aside, consequently, the concerned court below is directed to release the vehicle in question forthwith, in accordance with law.

¶35

Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned courts below for necessary compliance forthwith.

¶36

Order Date :- 6.10.2023/Kamarjahan

¶37

Digitally signed by :- KAMARJAHAN ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Faisal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faisal 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

Smt. Neetan Purvanshi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Pooja and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shiwani Mall and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Umashankar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Umashankar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Vibhu Pratap Raghubanshi Vs State of U.P. and Another