Jubaida Khatun vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Heard Sri Mohd. Anas Siddiqui, Advocate holding brief of Sri Firoz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amitabh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the State.

¶10

Present petition has been filed for the following main relief(s):-

¶11

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the learned District Magistrate Amethi, District- Amethi passed in Case No. 953/2022 (Computerized No. D202204710000953) State Vs. Jubeda Khatun" arising out of Case Crime No. 39/2022, Under Sections 3/5/8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention Of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 & section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act pertaining to Police Station-Gauriganj, District- Amethi as well as order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner Ayodhya Division Ayodhya passed in Criminal Appeal/Case No. 1447 of 2023 [Computerized No. C202304000001447] "Smt. Jubeda Katun Vs. State of U.P through Collector & Others", as contained in Annexure No. 1 & 2 to this Writ petition.

¶12

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned judgment and order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the learned District Magistrate Amethi, District- Amethi passed in Case No. 953/2022 (Computerized No. D202204710000953) State Vs. Jubeda Khatun" arising out of Case Crime No. 39/2022, Under Sections 3/5/8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention Of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 & section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act pertaining to Police Station-Gauriganj, District- Amethi as well as order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner Ayodhya Division Ayodhya passed in Criminal Appeal/Case No. 1447 of 2023 [Computerized No. C202304000001447] "Smt. Jubeda Katun Vs. State of U.P through Collector & Others", as contained in Annexure No. 1&2 to this writ petition, in the interest of justice."

¶13

CRLP No. 892 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

Vide impugned order dated 10.03.2023 passed by opposite party No.3District Magistrate, Amethi, in Case No. 953 of 2022 under Section 5(A) of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (in short 'Act of 1955') confiscated the Truck of the petitioner bearing No. UP-53 ET-5315. The relevant portion of the order dated 10.03.2023 reads as under:-

¶16

" उभयपक्ष की ओर से प्रस्तुत तकोर्ं एवं पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध अिभलेखीय साक्ष्यों यथा प्रथम सूचना िरपोटर् के सम्यक अवलोकनोपरान्त यह िविदत होता है िक प्रकरण में िनिहत वाहन को िदनांक 02.02.2022 को स्थानीय थाना गौरीगंज के उपिनरीक्षक द्वारा अपने सहकिमयों के साथ उस पर 12 अदद जीिवत गोवंशीय पशुओं को बेरहमी पूवर्क रस्सी से बधे हुए पाये जाने के आधार पर िनरुद्ध / सीज िकया गया है। यह भी उल्लेख िकया गया है िक उपरोक्त वाहन पर बरामदगी के समय वाहन चालक व अन्य कोई भी व्यिक्त उपिस्थत नहीं िमला। जहा तक िवपक्षी का यह कथन िक उक्त वाहन को उसके चालक द्वारा ए०सी०सी० सीमेंट फैक्ट्री िटकुिरया से सीमेंट लोिडग करने के िलए जा रहा था , के सम्बन्ध में कोई अिभलेखीय साक्ष्य नहीं दािखल िकया गया है , िजससे िक उनके कथनों की िविधक पुिष्ट होती हो।

¶17

अिभयोजन पक्ष के अनुसार उक्त प्रकरण में िववेचनोपरान्त िवपक्षी के वाहन से उक्त कृत्य िकया जाना पाया गया है। इस सम्बनध में उत्तर प्रदेश असाधारण बजट 11 जून 2020 में गोवध के अपराध से संबंिधत वाहन के सपहरण एवं िविनयुक्त के िवशेष प्रावधान प्रदत िकये गये हैं जो िनम्नवत है -

¶18

" इस और सती के उपबन्धों का उत्पन करके गाया गाय और उसके राज का पिरवहन करने वाला यान िविध प्रवतर्न करने वाले अिधकािरयों द्वारा अितधृत तथा जब्त कर िलया जायेगा। संबंिधत िजला मिजस्टेट / पुिलस आयुक्त अिधहरण तथा िविनमुक्ती की समस्त कायर्वािहयां करेगा। " अत : प्रथमदृष्टया स्पष्ट है िक िवपक्षी के वाहन उपरोक्त से िकया गया उक्त कृत्य गोवध िनवारण अिधिनयम के संबंिधत प्रावधानों का स्पष्ट उल्लघन है।

¶19

पिरणामतः पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्यों से प्रमािणत हो रहे तथ्यों के आधार पर प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में िनरुद्ध / सीज वाहन में गोवंशीय पशुओं का अवैध पिरवहन िसद्ध होने के कारण उसे राज्य सरकार के पक्ष में जब्त िकया जाना उिचत प्रतीत होता है। तदनुसार प्रकरण का िनस्तारण िकया जाता है।

¶20

आदशे

¶21

उपरोक्त िववेचना एवं िनष्कपों के आधार पर में उ० प्र० गोवध िनवारण अिधिनयम 1955 ( यथा संशोिधत ) की धारा 5 क (7) में प्रदत्त शिक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए प्रकरण प्रकरण में िनिहत वाहन स० यू०पी० 53 ई०टी० 5315 ( ट्रक ) चेिसस नम्बर -MAT541089 J1E16174 व इंजन नम्बर ISBE5.9180408IE63694702 ( जो थानाध्यक्ष गौरीगंज की अिभरक्षा में िनरूद्ध है ) को राज्य सरकार के पक्ष में जब्त / अिधहरण करने का आदेश देता हूँ। आदेश की एक प्रित पुिलस अधीक्षक अमेठी को उपरोक्तानुसार अनुपालनाथर् एवं अग्रेतर आवश्यक कायर्वाही हेतु प्रेिषत की जाये। बाद अन्य आवश्यक कायर्वाही पत्रावली अिभलेखागार में संग्रहीत हो।"

¶22

It is to be noted that on 02.02.2022 Truck of the petitioner bearing No. UP-53 ET-5315 was apprehended by the police party and in the truck total number of 12 cows were found and thereafter an FIR, registered as Case Crime No. 039 of 2022, was lodged, under Sections 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and 3/5/8 of the Act of 1955,

¶23

CRLP No. 892 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

P.S.-Gauriganj, District-Amethi.

¶26

Challenging the order dated 10.03.2023 passed by opposite party No.3District Magistrate, Amethi, petitioner preferred an Appeal No. 1447 of 2023 before the Commissioner, Ayodhya, Division-Ayodhya, Ayodhya (in short "Appellate Authority"), who dismissed the said appeal vide impugned order dated 11.12.2024 and affirmed the order of the Magistrate dated 10.03.2023. Relevant portion of the order dated 11.12.2024 reads as under:-

¶27

" िवद्वान िजला शासकीय अिधवक्ता ( दािण्डक ) का मुख्य कथन है िक अपीलकतार् के प्रश्नगत वाहन से 12 अदद गोवंशीय पशु रस्सी से मुंह व चारो पैर बांधकर बेरहमी से लदे हुए स्थानीय पुिलस द्वारा बरामद िकये जाने एवं उनका अवैध पिरवहन िकये जाने के बाबत मु०अ०सं० -39/2022 अन्तगर्त धारा 3/5/8 गोवध िनवारण अिधिनयम व 11 पशु क् र ूता अिधिनयम का अिभयोग स्थानीय थाने में पंजीकृत िकया गया। अपीलकतार् द्वारा अपने वाहन संख्या - यू० पी० -53 ई०टी० -5315 ( ट्रक ) का प्रयोग प्रितबंिधत गोवंशीय पशुओ का अवैध पिरवहन कर उ०प्र० गोवध िनवारण अिधिनयम से सम्बिन्धत प्रािवधानों का उल्लघंन िकया गया है। अपीलकतार् के उक्त कृत्यो से आम जनमानस पर प्रितकूल प्रभाव पड़ा है। ऐसे में अधीनस्थ न्यायालय ने सम्बिन्धत थाना में िनरूद्ध / सीज अपीलकतार् के वाहन को राज्य सरकार के पक्ष में जब्त / अिधहरण करने का प्रश्नगत आदेश िविधसम्मत ढंग से पािरत िकया है , िजसमें िकसी हस्तक्षेप की आवश्यकता नहीं है। अन्त में उनके द्वारा अपील िनरस्त िकये जाने की प्राथर्ना की गई।

¶28

प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में उभय पक्षों के िवद्वान अिधवक्तागण द्वारा प्रस्तुत तकोर् एवं पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्यों का सम्यक रूप से अनुशीलन एवं पिरशीलन िकया गया। पुिलस आख्या के अवलोकन से िविदत होता है िक िदनांक 02.02.2022 को अपीलकतार् के प्रश्नगत वाहन से 12 अदद प्रितबंिधत गोवंशीय पशुओं को रस्सी से उनके मुंह व पैरों को बांधकर बेरहमी से लाद कर उनका अवैध रूप से तस्करी / गोकशी करने / कराने , आिथक एवं भौितक लाभ प्राप्त करने के उद्देश्य से िकये जाने हेतु ले जाते समय स्थानीय पुिलस टीम द्वारा बरामद िकया गया है। दौरान पुिलस िववेचना अपीलकतार् की प्रत्यक्ष संिलप्तता िसद्ध पाये जाने पर उसके िवरूद्ध उक्त आपरािधक कृत्यों को िकए जाने के बाबत मु०अ०सं० -39/2022 अन्तगर्त धारा 3/5/8 गोवध िनवारण अिधिनयम व 11 पशु क् र ूता अिधिनयम का अिभयोग स्थानीय थाने में पंजीकृत कर उपरोक्त कृत्य / पिरवहन में प्रयुक्त अपीलकतार् के वाहन संख्या यू०पी० -53 ई० टी० -5315 ( ट्रक ) को िनरूद्ध / सीज कर धारा -5( क ) गोवध अिधिनयम के अन्तगर्त राज्य सरकार के पक्ष में जब्त / अिधहरण िकये जाने की संस्तुित पुिलस द्वारा की गयी है। अपीलकतार् का कृत्य उ०प्र० गोवध िनवारण अिधिनयम में उिल्लिखत प्रािवधानों का स्पष्ट उल्लंघन है। उ०प्र० गो - वध िनवारण अिधिनयम 1955 की धारा -5- क (7) में प्रािवधािनत है िक गोमांस या गाय और उनके वंशज का पिरवहन करने वाला यान िजला मिजस्ट्रेट द्वारा अिधग्रहीत एवं जब्त कर िलया जाएगा तथा िजला मिजस्ट्रेट , अिधग्रहण तथा िनमुर्िक्त से सम्बिन्धत समस्त कायर्वािहयां करेगा। प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में अधीनस्थ न्यायालय ने अपीलकतार् को साक्ष्य व सुनवाई का समुिचत अवसर प्रदान करते हुए पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध पुिलस आख्या एवं सुसंगत प्रपत्रों के पिरशीलनोपरान्त प्रश्नगत आदेश िदनांक 10.03.2023 के माध्यम से िनरूद्ध / सीज अपीलकतार् का वाहन संख्या यू०पी० -53 ई०टी० -5315 ( ट्रक ) राज्य सरकार के पक्ष में जब्त / अिधहरण िकये जाने का आदेश उिचत रूप से पािरत िकया है , िजसमें िकसी हस्तक्षेप की आवश्यकता प्रतीत नहीं होती है। प्रश्नगत अपील बलहीन होने के कारण िनरस्त िकये जाने योग्य है।

¶29

अतः उपरोक्त विणत िववेचना के आलोक में प्रश्नगत अपील बलहीन होने के कारण िनरस्त की जाती है। इस आदेश की एक प्रित के साथ अधीनस्थ न्यायालय की पत्रावली वापस भेजी जाय। आवश्यक कायर्वाही उपरान्त इस न्यायालय की पत्रावली संिचत अिभलेखागार की जाय।"

¶30

CRLP No. 892 of 2025

¶31

4

¶32

In the present background of the case, present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order(s) aforesaid.

¶33

It is stated that the order of the confiscation passed by the opposite party No.3-District Magistrate, Amethi dated 10.03.2023 and also the order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority are not in consonance with law propounded by this Court in various pronouncements in which this Court took note of relevant provisions of the Act of 1955, including Section 5A(1) which has not been considered in the judgment place by the learned counsel for the State dated 29.09.2022 passed in Application U/S 482 No.10041 of 2022 (Mohd Yasir vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others).

¶34

It has also been submitted that it is not the case of the prosecution that the cows and its progeny were transported out of State of U.P. and as such the indulgence of this Court is required in the matter. Prayer is to allow the petition and set aside the order of the impugned order(s) dated 10.03.2023 passed by the opposite party No.3-District Magistrate, Amethi and order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority and release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.

¶35

The relevant paras of the judgment passed in the case of Mohd Yasir (supra), referred by the learned counsel for the State, are as under:-

¶36

"5. However, while relying upon Kailash Yadav (supra), the coordinate Bench has missed that Section 5B was introduced in the Act by way of Amendment No. 20 of 2020 i.e. after the judgment was passed in Kailash Yadav (supra) and therefore the coordinate Bench have not considered the ingredients of Section 5B and simply followed Kailash Yadav (supra). For ready reference, Section 5B are quoted hereinbelow:-

¶37

"Section 5B :- Whoever causes any physical injury to any cow or its progeny so as to endanger the life thereof such as to mutilate its body or to transport it in any situation whereby endangering the life thereof or with the intention of endangering the life thereof does not provide with food or water shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year and which may extend to seven years and with fine which shall not be less than one Lakh rupees and which may extend to three Lakh rupees."

¶38

(emphasis supplied)

¶39

6. Considering the above provision, the proceedings initiated against the applicant under Section 5A (7) which provides as under are legally correct :-

¶40

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

¶41

CRLP No. 892 of 2025

¶42

5

¶43

(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."

¶44

7. Therefore, the observations of coordinate Bench that Section 5A of Act of 1955 shall not operate as a bar as against the result of vehicle seized under Section 5A of Act of 1955 is incorrect due to amendment whereby Section 5B was inserted.

¶45

8. In view of above, no case is made out for interference and the vehicle of applicant was used for the purpose of committing offence under Section 5-A and 5-B also, therefore, the proceedings initiated against the applicant under Section 5A (7) are legally correct as it provides transportation of beef or cow and its progeny in violation of provisions of the Act (i.e. violation of provisions of Section 5B also) whereby proceedings of confiscation and release can be undertaken as well are there are serious allegations that truck was playing with forged number plate and cow progeny was transported to West Bengal via Bihar for their slaughtering and progeny was found in bad conditions endangering the life thereof and, therefore, no interference is required in the impugned order passed by Magistrate as also passed in the revision petition by Sessions Judge.

¶46

9. The application stands rejected."

¶47

In the case of Kailash Yadav and others vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2008 SCC OnLine All 1167 passed in Criminal Revision No. 131 of 2005, this Court observed as under:-

¶48

"6. Section 3 of Cow Slaughter Act lays down that "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."

¶49

7. Section 5-A of Cow Slaughter Act although is not relevant for the present case, but it will be useful to have a look on this section also, which read thus:—

¶50

5-A Regulation on transport of cow etc-(1)

¶51

"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."

¶52

CRLP No. 892 of 2025

¶53

6

¶54

8. The contravention of Sections 3, 5 & 5-A of Cow Slaughter Act is punishable under section 8 which reads thus:—

¶55

"(1) Whoever contravenes or abets the contravention of the provisions of Section 3, Section 5 or Section 5-A shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.

¶56

(2) Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable under sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence and with such fine as is provided for the offence."

¶57

9. As mentioned herein-above, the allegations made in the First Information Report lodged at P.S. Nanahra on 20-12-2004, in brief, are that the accused Radhey Shyam Yadav, Subhash Navik, Baladin Pasi, Ramesh Yadav and Chottey Lal Yadav were arrested by the police carrying fifteen bullocks for the purpose of slaughtering. Having regard to the term 'Slaughter' as defined in section 2(d) of Cow Slaughter Act and provisions of Section 3, even if the entire version of FIR is accepted to be true, no offence under Cow Slaughter Act would be made out in this case. Although merely due to carrying the bullocks by the accused persons named in the FIR, it can not be presumed that they were carrying the said cattle for slaughtering, but even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the accused persons were carrying the bullocks for the purpose of slaughtering, then also no of fence under Cow Slaughter Act would be made out in present case, because all the bullocks were healthy and neither they were being offered to any other person for slaughtering nor any attempt for slaughtering was being made by the accused persons carrying them. No bullock was found maimed and no injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death was caused to any bullock. If the entire version of the FIR is taken to be true on its face value, the case would not travel beyond the stage of preparation, which is not punishable under Cow Slaughter Act or any other law for the time being in force. There was no contravention of section 3 or any other section of Cow Slaughter Act and hence, no offence punishable under section 8 of the said Act would be made out in this case. Attempt to commit the offences described in section 3, section 5 and section 5-A of Cow Slaughter Act is punishable under section 8(2) of the Act. If neither any attempt of slaughtering the cow, bull or bullock is made nor these cattle are offered to any person for slaughtering and if all the cattle during transportation or carrying them on foot remained healthy and no cattle is killed or maimed and no injury sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death is caused to them, then no offence under the Cow Slaughter Act would be made out, even if these cattle are carried with the intention of slaughtering, because intention of the offence of slaughtering is not punishable under any law for the time being in force.

¶58

10. Mere transportation of cow, bull or bullock from one place to another place within the State of Uttar Pradesh or carrying them on foot can not amount to 'attempt' of slaughtering and this act at the most can be said to the 'preparation' of slaughtering, which is not punishable under Cow Slaughter Act or any other law for the time being in force. Reference in this regard may be made to the case of

¶59

CRLP No. 892 of 2025

¶60

7

¶61

11. The offence of 'abetment' of slaughtering would also not be made out in present case, as the accused persons at the time of their arrest were neither offering the bullocks to any other person for slaughtering, nor they were providing any other kind of aid to any person for the offence of slaughtering. Mere transporting the cow, bull or bullock or carrying them on foot from one place to another place within the State of Uttar Pradesh can not be said to the 'abetment' of any offence under Cow Slaughter Act, unless these cattle are either offered to any other person for slaughtering or any other kind of aid is provided to any person for the offence of slaughtering.

¶62

12. It is often seen now-a-days that whenever the cow, bull or bullocks are transported by any goods carriage or carried on foot, they are generally seized either by the police or some anti-social elements. The Uttar Pradesh Police also is helpless before such antisocial elements, who are violating the fundamental right of citizens to carry the trade of purchasing and selling the cattle. Cow Slaughter Act prohibits slaughter of cow and its progeny and possession of beef, but neither this Act, nor any other law for the time being in force prohibits the trade of cow or its progeny within the State of Uttar Pradesh. Unfortunately the police of Uttar Pradesh is also helping such anti-social elements by seizing the cattle and vehicles carrying them, even no offence under Cow Slaughter Act or Animals' Cruelty Act is made out. Even more unfortunate state of affairs in Uttar Pradesh is that the Magistrates and Judges in subordinate courts are also not looking to this matter and either due to excessive devotion to cow or lack of legal knowledge, they are not only declining to release the seized cattle or vehicles carrying them, but without applying their mind, they are rejecting the bail applications also in such cases, although no offence under Cow Slaughter Act is made out and all the offences under Animals' Cruelty Act are bail able. While making inspection of Rampur judgeship as Administrative Judge, I found that a large number of bail applications in such cases were rejected not only by the magistrates, but unfortunately the then Sessions Judge and some Additional Sessions Judges also did not care to see whether any offence under Cow Slaughter Act is made out or not and without applying the mind, the bail applications even in those cases were rejected where two or three bullocks were being carried on foot by the accused. This unfortunate practice of rejecting the bail applications without applying mind by merely seeing sections 3, 5, 5-A and 8 of Cow Slaughter Act in FIR is prevalent almost in the whole Uttar Prdesh, which is unnecessarily increasing the work-load of High Court. By declining bail to the accused persons under Cow Slaughter Act, although no offence under this act is made out and the offences punishable under Animals' Cruelty Act are bailable, the personal liberty of the accused protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is also unnecessarily curtailed till their release on granting bail by the High Court.

¶63

13. Certain guidelines were issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 : AIR 2003 Supreme Court 638 regarding disposal of the property. While passing the impugned order, the learned Court below did not care to see those guidelines. When no offence under the Cow Slaughter Act is made out in the present case, then there was no justification for the court below to

¶64

CRLP No. 892 of 2025

¶65

8

¶66

decline to release the seized bullocks merely on the assumption that the said cattle were being carried to Bihar for slaughtering.

¶67

14. The bullocks in question were seized from the possession of the accused persons named in the FIR, which was lodged at P.S. Nanahra, whereas the application for their re lease was moved by the Revisionists claiming themselves to be the owners of the said bullocks. The Court below while passing the impugned order has not decided the matter of ownership of bullocks. The accused per sons named in the FIR do not appear to have been heard at the time of passing the impugned order.

¶68

15. Therefore, the bullocks can not be released by this Court in favour of the Revisionists, as the matter of their ownership has to be decided by the Court below after giving opportunity to the accused persons named in the FIR. The Court below vide its impugned order appears to have declined to release the bullocks assuming that the said bullocks were being carried to Bihar for slaughtering. As I have stated above, mere carrying or transporting the cow, bull or bullock from one place to another place within the State of Uttar Pradesh does not constitute any offence under Cow Slaughter Act unless there is contravention of section 3 and 5-A of the Act. As stated herein-above, there was no contravention of section 3 or any other section of Cow Slaughter Act in the present case. Therefore, the impugned order being wholly illegal can not be sustained."

¶69

In the case of Mohd. Shakib vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 568 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 23143 of 2021 this Court observed as under:-

¶70

"11. For deciding the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 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:—

¶71

"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.

¶72

(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:

¶73

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.

¶74

(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).

¶75

CRLP No. 892 of 2025

¶76

9

¶77

(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.

¶78

(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.

¶79

[(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.

¶80

(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.

¶81

(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.

¶82

(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.

¶83

(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 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.

¶84

(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 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 shall be effective thereto.]"

¶85

12. 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 v. State of U.P., 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

¶86

CRLP No. 892 of 2025

¶87

10

¶88

violation of the provision of this Act and the relevant rules. Sub-section 5A (6 to 8) reads as follows:—

¶89

(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.

¶90

(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.

¶91

(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.

¶92

13. 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 v. State of U.P. (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 District Magistrate, Varanasi has passed the impugned confiscation order dated 18.08.2021 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 18.08.2021 passed by District Magistrate, Varanasi is without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set-aside. Likewise, the revisional court has not considered the relevant provisions of Section 5A of Cow Slaughter Act while dismissing the criminal revision of the applicant, therefore, the impugned order dated 13.10.2021 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Chandauli is also against the provisions of law and is liable to be set-aside.

¶93

14. Accordingly, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The impugned orders dated 18.08.2021 passed by District Magistrate, Varanasi and the order dated 13.10.2021 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) are, hereby, set-aside, consequently, the concerned court below is directed to release the vehicle in question forthwith, in accordance with law.

¶94

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

¶95

CRLP No. 892 of 2025

¶96

11

¶97

In the case of Vaseem Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine All 2469 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6826 of 2023, this Court observed as under:-

¶98

"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 hereinunder:—

¶99

2….

¶100

[(a) "beef" means flesh of cow but does not include such flesh contained in sealed containers and imported as such into Uttar Pradesh;]

¶101

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 take proceedings of confiscation and release in respect of the said seized vehicle.

¶102

9. Section 5A(11) of the Cow Slaughter Act provides that the provisions of the Act or the related rules in the context of search, acquisition, disposal and seizure shall follow the Cr. P.C., where the rules in respect to the said are silent.

¶103

10. Section 5A is quoted herein below:—

¶104

"…5-A. Regulation on transport of cow, etc.-(1) No person shall transport or offer for transport or cause to be transported any cow, bull or bullock, the slaughter whereof in any place in Uttar Pradesh 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.

¶105

(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.

¶106

(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 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 shall be effective thereto."

¶107

11. Section 8 of the said Act provides for penalty in respect of a person who contravenes

¶108

CRLP No. 892 of 2025

¶109

12

¶110

Section 3, 5 or 5A.

¶111

12. In terms of the powers conferred by virtue of section 10 of the said Act, rules have been framed known as the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Rules, 1964. Rule 16 of the said rules provide for the manner of grant of permit for transportation of any cow, bull or bullock, the slaughter whereof is punishable under the Act and provides that any cow, bull or bullock transported without a valid permit shall be confiscated and auctioned. Rule 16 is quoted hereinbelow:—

¶112

….16 (1) Any person intending to transport or to offer for transport or to cause to transport any cow, bull or bullock, the slaughter whereof is punishable under this Act in any place in Uttar Pradesh from any place within the State to any place outside the State shall apply for a permit to the licensing authority on prescribed Form "G".

¶113

13. On the plain reading of the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder, it is clear that the vehicle on which the beef is alleged to be transported can be confiscated only in terms of the mandate of Rule 7 of section 5A.

¶114

14. To attract the power of confiscation conferred by virtue of Rule 7 of Section 5A, it is essential to allege and establish that the vehicle on which beef is being transported is done in violation of the provisions of this Act and the relevant rules. It is essential to note that for transportation of cow, bull or bullock specific rules for issuance of permit are prescribed under Rule 16, however, the transportation of the cow, bull or bullock, within the State of Uttar Pradesh (as is in the present case) does not require any permit as has also been held by this Court in the case of Ashfaq Ahmad v. State of UP, 9 (1) ACR 233.

¶115

15. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India prescribes that no one shall be deprived of his property except in accordance with law. The 'law', it is fairly well settled, should be a law framed by the Legislature. Thus, to deprive a person of his property (in the present case the motorcycle), it is essential that the Act framed by the Legislature prescribes for power of confiscation and subject to any limitations prescribed therein."

¶116

In the case of Kaliya vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others, 2023 SCC OnLine All 1974 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6826 of 2023 this Court observed as under:-

¶117

"8. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to extract Section 5-A of the Act which is reproduced below :

¶118

"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.

¶119

CRLP No. 892 of 2025

¶120

13

¶121

(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:

¶122

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.

¶123

(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).

¶124

(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.

¶125

(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.

¶126

[(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.

¶127

(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.

¶128

(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.

¶129

(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.

¶130

(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 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.

¶131

(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,

¶132

CRLP No. 892 of 2025

¶133

14

¶134

1973 shall be effective thereto.]"

¶135

9.A perusal of section 5-A(1) of the Act shows that the said provision shall come into place when the cow or its progeny is transported from within the State of U.P. to any other place outside the State and in that case, permit issued by the authorised officer of the State government shall be required.

¶136

There is nothing on record to show that the alleged recovered animals, i.e. the cows were being transported from within the State of U.P. to any other State. Therefore, from the plain reading of section 5-A of the Act, the permit is not required in the peculiar facts of this case.

¶137

10. The question involved in the case in hand has also come up for consideration before this court in Kailash Yadav and others versus State of U.P. and others 2008(10) ADJ 623 wherein it has been held that no permit is required for transportation of cow or its progeny within the State of U.P.. Section 5-A(6 to 8) provides for confiscation and release of vehicle by which beef or cow and its progeny is transported in violation of the provisions of the Act and relevant rules.

¶138

11.From perusal of sub sections (1 to 5) of section 5-A of the Act and the law laid down by this court in Kailash Yadav's case (supra), it is evident that there is no need of permit to transport cow(s) and its progeny within the State of U.P.. Hence, such transportation of cow and its progeny cannot be said to be in violation of the Act. Consequently, it can also not be said that the seized vehicle has been used in violation of Section 5-A or any other provision of the Act. Therefore, the police has no power or jurisdiction to seize or confiscate the vehicle in question and the District Magistrate also could not have issued notice under section 5-A of the Act when there is nothing to substantiate that the animals were being transported from within the State to some other State. In other words, in case the animals were being transported within the State of U.P., no show cause notice under section 5-A of the Act could have been given.

¶139

12.A coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 25.8.2022 passed in Mohd. Shakib versus State of U.P. Application under section 482 CrPC No.23143 of 2021 has held that no permit is required to transport cow and its progeny within the State of U.P. and 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. Relevant paras 12 and 13 of the judgment in Mohd. Shakib's case (supra) is reproduced as below :

¶140

"12. 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

¶141

CRLP No. 892 of 2025

¶142

15

¶143

5A (6 to 8) reads as follows:-

¶144

(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.

¶145

(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.

¶146

(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.

¶147

13. 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 District Magistrate, Varanasi has passed the impugned confiscation order dated 18.08.2021 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 18.08.2021 passed by District Magistrate, Varanasi is without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set-aside. Likewise, the revisional court has not considered the relevant provisions of Section 5A of Cow Slaughter Act while dismissing the criminal revision of the applicant, therefore, the impugned order dated 13.10.2021 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Chandauli is also against the provisions of law and is liable to be set-aside."

¶148

Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Mudaliar versus State of Gujarat [AIR 2003 SC 638] has deprecated the practice of police authorities by keeping the seized vehicles at the police station and has set out time limit for release of such vehicles within a maximum period of one month. It is said that the articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case for not more than fifteen days to one month.

¶149

13.In the case in hand, it is evident that the cow and its progeny were not being transported from within the State to outside State, therefore, the provisions of section 5-A of the Act are not attracted. Consequently, the show cause notice dated 13.12.2022 (supra) issued by the District Magistrate, confiscation order dated 14.3.2023 (supra) and the

¶150

CRLP No. 892 of 2025

¶151

16

¶152

appellate order dated 15.6.2023 (supra) are bad in law, and liable to be and are set aside.

¶153

The opposite parties are directed to release the vehicle forthwith in accordance with law on such terms which are deemed appropriate."

¶154

In the case of Yas Mohammad v. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine All 608, this Court after considering the relevant provisions including languages concluded under Section 5-A(7) of the Act of 1955 and also the relevant provisions of CrPC i.e. Section(s) 5, 451, 452 and 457 as also Rule 16 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Rules, 1964 (in short 'Rule of 1964') held that the Act of 1955 is Special Act and therefore declined to interfere in the order passed by ACJM-I, Balia dated 09.02.2021, affirmed vide order dated 18.03.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-I, Balia, whereby the ACJM-I, Balia rejected the application seeking release of vehicle. The relevant para(s) are extracted here-in-under:-

¶155

"9. It would be pertinent to note that sub-sections (6), (7), (8), (9), (10) and (11) have been inserted after sub-section (5) of Section 5-A in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter (Amendment) Act, 2020. [U.P. Act no. 20 of 2020].

¶156

10. A plain reading of the provisions contained under Section 5-A of the PCSA would indicate that the transportation of cow, etc., is regulated in terms thereof. Sub-section (1) of Section 5-A contains a clear prohibition on transportation of any cow or bull or bullock, the slaughter whereof in any place in Uttar Pradesh is punishable under the Act, from any place within the State to any place outside the State, except under a permit to be 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. Sub-section (4) mandates that the form of permit, the form of application therefor and the procedure for disposal of such application shall be such as may be prescribed.

¶157

11. In exercise of powers under Section 10 of the PCSA read with Section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, and in supersession of Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Rules, 1956, the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Rules, 19645 were made. Rule 16 of the Rules, 1964 provides for issuance of a permit in a prescribed form to any person intending to transport or to offer for transport or to cause to transport any cow, bull or bullock, the slaughter whereof is punishable under the Act in any place in Uttar Pradesh from any place within the State to any place outside the State. For ease of reference, Rule 16 of the Rules, 1964 is being reproduced below:—

¶158

"16. (1) Any person intending to transport or the offer for transport or to cause to transport any cow, bull or bullock, the slaughter whereof is punishable under this Act in any place in Uttar Pradesh from any place within the State to any place outside the State shall apply for a permit to the officer authorised under Section 5-A of the Act on

¶159

CRLP No. 892 of 2025

¶160

17

¶161

prescribed Form "G"."

¶162

12. In terms of Section 2 of the Amending Act i.e. U.P. Act No. 20 of 2020 by means of which sub-sections (6), (7), (8), (9), (10) and (11) have been inserted in Section 5-A, the powers with regard to confiscation and seizure of which vehicle used in transportation of the beef or cow and its progeny, in violation of the provisions of this Act and the relevant rules have been delineated.

¶163

13. As per terms of sub-section (7) of Section 5-A, the vehicle by which the beef or cow and its progeny are being transported in violation of the Act and the relevant rules is to be confiscated and seized by the law enforcement officers and concerned District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police are to undertake proceedings of confiscation and release, as the case may be.

¶164

14. Sub-section (11) of Section 5-A provides that where the provisions of Act or the related rules in context of search, acquisition, disposal and seizure are silent, the relevant provisions of the Code shall be effective thereto. The provisions inserted under Section 5-A in terms of the aforesaid Amending Act, i.e. U.P. Act No. 20 of 2020 in respect of confiscation and release of vehicle would therefore, go to show that the scheme of the Act provides a complete procedure with regard to proceedings relating to confiscation and release. The necessary provisions with regard to confiscation, seizure and release of vehicle used for transportation in violation of the provisions of PCSA and the Rules made therein, having being provided for, and the Act and the Rules not being silent in regard thereto as per the stipulation under sub-section (11) of Section 5-A, the provisions of the Code would not be invocable in matters relating to confiscation, seizure and release under the PCSA.

¶165

15. Section 5 of the Code contains a saving clause and as per terms thereof nothing contained in the Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force.

¶166

16. The applicability of the provisions of the Code in an area covered by a special or local law, in the context of the saving clause under section 5 of the Code was considered in the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Maru Ram v. Union of India6 and also in State (Union of India) v. Ram Sharan7, and it was held that the section consists of three components : (i) the Code covers matters covered by it; (ii) if a special or local law exists covering the same area, the said law is saved and will prevail; (iii) if there is a special provision to the contrary, that will override the special or local law.

¶167

17. The PCSA is a "local law" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Code and in view thereof, the general provisions contained under Sections 451 of the Code with regard to custody and disposal of the property pending trial or the power for making an order for disposal of property at the conclusion of trial under Section 452 or the procedure under

¶168

CRLP No. 892 of 2025

¶169

18

¶170

Section 457 would therefore, be subject to the powers exercisable under Section 5-A of the PCSA which makes a special provision with regard to confiscation and seizure of the vehicle used for transport in contravention of the provisions of the Act.

¶171

18. The provisions under Section 451 to 457 of the Code are in the nature of general provisions whereas the provisions relating to seizure, confiscation and release as contained under Section 5-A of the PCSA which expressly deal with these matters would be in the nature of special provisions contained under a special Act and in view thereof, the normal rule of interpretation that the special provision must prevail over the general and if a case is covered by a special provision, the general provision would not be attracted, would be applicable.

¶172

19. In the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), which is sought to be relied upon on behalf of the applicant, the subject matter of consideration was a challenge which had been raised to an order of police remand granted to the prosecuting agency for the petitioners therein, who were police personnel involved in offences punishable under Sections 429, 420, 465, 468, 477-A and 114 of the Penal Code, 1860 on allegations that they had committed offences during a period of time by replacing of valuable articles retained as case property by other spurious articles, misappropriation of the amount which was kept at the police station, unauthorised auction of the property which was seized and kept in the police custody pending trial and tampering with the records of the police station. The offences which were subject matter of the case were under the penal code and not under a special Act, and accordingly, the provisions under Sections 451 and 457 were applicable. The judgment in the case Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), which is an authority relating to release of vehicles seized in connection with criminal proceedings under general law would not be applicable under the facts of the present case which relate to proceedings under a special Act, particularly in view of the provisions under Section 5 of the Code.

¶173

20. A similar question as to whether the Magistrate would have jurisdiction to exercise powers under Sections 451, 452 and 457 of the Code to direct release of any property which was subject matter of confiscation proceedings under Section 72 of the U.P. Excise Act, 19109 before the Collector, was considered in a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Vikki v. State of U.P.10 and taking into consideration that the Excise Act is a local law within the meaning of Section 5 of the Code, it was held that the provisions contained under Section 72 of the Excise Act would have the effect of denuding the Magistrate of his power to pass any order under Section 457 of the Code for release of any article seized in connection with an offence purporting to have been committed under the Act.

¶174

21. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, the vehicle in question having been confiscated and seized in exercise of powers under Section 5-A of the PCSA, which is in the nature of a special Act and a local law under Section 5 of the Code, the same would clearly have the effect of denuding the Magistrate of his power to pass any order under Sections 451, 452 and 457 of the Code for release of the vehicle seized for

¶175

CRLP No. 892 of 2025

¶176

19

¶177

alleged violation of the provisions of the Act.

¶178

22. Having regard to the aforesaid, the view taken by the courts below in declining to entertain the application of the applicant for release of the vehicle during the pendency of proceedings under the PCSA, cannot be said to suffer from illegality so as to warrant interference."

¶179

Learned counsel for the State opposed the present petition. However, he could not dispute the aforesaid legal proposition.

¶180

Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.

¶181

Upon due consideration aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the present petition is liable to be allowed for the reason(s) that it is not the case of the prosecution that cows or its progeny found in the vehicle in issue were transported outside the State of U.P., which ought to be in view of Section 5- A(1) of the Act of 1955 read with Rule 16 of Rule of 1964 as also the observation made by this Court in the judgment(s), referred above. It is accordingly allowed. The impugned order(s) dated 10.03.2023 and 11.12.2024 passed by the opposite party No.3-District Magistrate, Amethi and the Appellate Authority, respectively, are hereby set aside.

¶182

The opposite party No.3-District Magistrate, Amethi is directed to release the Truck bearing No. UP-53 ET-5315 in favour of the petitioner, in case he establishes his ownership, imposing appropriate terms/conditions.

¶183

November 19, 2025 Vinay/-

¶184

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶185

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jubaida Khatun v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jubaida Khatun v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arif Anwar Hashmi and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Radha Devi and 2 Others Vs Dinesh Kumar

Monu Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Gokul Prasad Jaiswal vs Sri Kumar Prashant, Director, Social Welfare Deptt. U.P. Kalyan Bhawan Lko.

Manoj Kumar Tripathi and 17 Others vs Dr. Ram Chandra, Presently Posted as Dist. Inspector of Schools Dist. Gonda

Ayodhya Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another