Allowed¶24

Santosh Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2026CRLR/2475/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Abdul Shahid, J.; Criminal Revision No. 2475 of 2025 (CRLR); Santosh Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 others; vehicle confiscation; Pick-up UP-60 BT6176; Section 5(A)(7) U.P. Prevention of Cows Slaughter Act, 1955; Sections 3/5A/5B/8; Case Crime No. 152 of 2024; P.S. Chitwasra Gaon, District Ballia; confiscation on presumption; confession in FIR; no oral or documentary evidence; Article 300A right to property; State Government notification dated 15.10.2024; Divisional Commissioner jurisdiction; incident dated 25.9.2024; Rajesh Yadav; Roopchandra Nishad; Nitesh Kumar; revision allowed; release of vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Impugned confiscation order dated 22.4.2025 set aside; Pick-up bearing Registration No. UP-60 BT-6176 directed to be released in favour of the revisionist, if there is no other legal impediment.

Santosh Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned confiscation order dated 22.4.2025 set aside; Pick-up bearing Registration No. UP-60 BT-6176 directed to be released in favour of the revisionist, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the District Magistrate's order confiscating the revisionist's vehicle under Section 5(A)(7) of the U.P. Prevention of Cows Slaughter Act, 1955 could be sustained when it rested only on a presumption that cows progeny were being transported outside Uttar Pradesh for slaughter, unsupported by any oral or documentary evidence. +2 more

¶18

Court's answer

The impugned confiscation order was passed only on the presumption that the recovered cows progeny were being transported for slaughter outside Uttar Pradesh; there was no oral or documentary evidence supporting that presumption.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The only material available before the District Magistrate was the first information report disclosing the revisionist's confession.

¶18

Key takeaways

The State Government notification dated 15.10.2024 (vesting jurisdiction in the Divisional Commissioner) was not in existence on the date of the incident, 25.9.2024, and therefore had no application.ratio¶17
The revisionist's vehicle is property within the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and its confiscation without any reasonable basis violates the constitutional right to property.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision allowed against the order of the District Magistrate, Ballia confiscating the revisionist's Pick-up (Regn. No. UP-60 BT6176) under Section 5(A)(7) of the U.P. Prevention of Cows Slaughter Act, 1955: the confiscation was founded solely on a presumption, the FIR disclosing only the revisionist's confession and there being no oral or documentary evidence that the cows progeny were being transported outside Uttar Pradesh for slaughter; such confiscation without reasonable basis violates the right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The State Government notification dated 15.10.2024 vesting jurisdiction in the Divisional Commissioner did not apply, as the incident dated 25.9.2024 preceded it. Impugned order dated 22.4.2025 set aside; vehicle ordered to be released to the revisionist subject to no other legal impediment.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2475 of 2025

¶3

Santosh Singh

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ajeet Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 87

¶7

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.

¶9

The instant criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 22.4.2025, passed by learned District Magistrate, District Ballia in Case No. 2864 of 2024 (Computerize Case No. D202415090002864) (State Vs. Santosh Singh) under Section 5(A) of U.P. Prevention of Cows Slaughter Act, 1955 relating to Case Crime No. 152 of 2024, under Section 3/5A/5B/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cows Slaughter Act,1955, Police Station Chitwasra Gaon, District Ballia.

¶10

Vide impugned order, learned District Magistrate has passed an order confiscating the vehicle i.e. Pick-up bearing Registration No. UP-60 BT6176, under Section 5(A) (7) of the aforesaid Act.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that no offence under the U.P. Prevention of Cows Slaughter Act is made out against the revisionist as the cows progeny recovered from the aforesaid pickup were being transported to the State of U.P.

¶12

Learned District Magistrate has passed the impugned order without any basis and any evidence that the cows progeny were being transported outside the State. He further submitted that only material against the revisionist is that the confession of the revisionist and apart from that there is no oral or documentary evidence regarding factum of cows

¶13

CRLR No. 2475 of 2025

¶14

¶15

progeny being transported to outside the State. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied on the law laid down by this Court in Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7938 of 2023, decided on 24.7.2023) and in Roopchandra Nishad Vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Revision No. 6781 of 2024, decided on 12.6.2025) .

¶16

On the other hand, learned AGA submitted that revisionist has failed to prove that the cows progeny were being transported within the State of U.P. He further submitted that no material has been produced by the revisionist to substantiate aforesaid aspect of the matter. Learned AGA relying on judgment of this Court in Nitesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14242 of 2025 ) has submitted that a notification has been issued on 15.10.2024 by the State Government, and as per said notification, the Divisional Commissioner is having only the jurisdiction.

¶17

From perusal of the record reflects that the date of incident is 25.9.2024 which is prior to issuance of said notification dated 15.10.2024, hence when the alleged occurrence took place, the said notification was even not in existence.

¶18

On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that learned District Magistrate has passed the order impugned only on presumption that the recovered cows progeny were being transported for the purpose of slaughtering outside the State of U.P. There is no oral or documentary evidence regarding the said presumption. The only material available before the learned District Magistrate was the first information report which discloses the confession of the revisionist.

¶19

Vehicle of the revisionist comes within the purview of property under the meaning of Section 300A of the Constitution of India and confiscating the vehicle without any reasonable basis amount to violation of the said right to property as provided by the aforesaid Article i.e. 300A Constitution of India.

¶20