Pyari Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Pyari Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned confiscation order dated 07.08.2024 set aside; vehicle bearing Registration No. BR-45 GA-9178 directed to be released in favour of the revisionist, if there is no other legal impediment.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 07.08.2024 of the District Magistrate confiscating the revisionist's vehicle (Pick-up No. BR-45 GA-9178) under section 5(A)(7) of the U.P. Cow Slaughter Act can be sustained. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned order of the District Magistrate dated 07.08.2024 cannot be sustained and is set aside.

Ratio / Principle

There was no oral or documentary evidence regarding the presumption; the only material available before the learned District Magistrate was the first information report, which discloses the confession of the revisionist.

Key takeaways

The revisionist's vehicle is property within the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and confiscating the vehicle without any reasonable basis amounts to a violation of the said right to property.ratio¶22
The notification dated 15.10.2024 was not in existence on the date of the incident (02.12.2023) and therefore had no application to the alleged occurrence.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

U.P. Cow Slaughter Act — confiscation of vehicle under section 5(A)(7) by District Magistrate — criminal revision allowed. Held: there was no oral or documentary evidence regarding the presumption, the only material before the District Magistrate being the first information report disclosing the revisionist's confession; the vehicle is property within the meaning of Article 300A, Constitution of India, and confiscation without reasonable basis violates the right to property; the State Government notification dated 15.10.2024 (jurisdiction of the Divisional Commissioner) was not in existence on the date of incident (02.12.2023). Impugned order dated 07.08.2024 (District Magistrate, Chandauli, Case No. 389 of 2024) set aside; Pick-up No. BR-45 GA-9178 directed to be released to the revisionist, if there is no other legal impediment.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5041 of 2025

Pyari Devi

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Kamlesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 87

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

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

The instant criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 07.08.2024 passed by District Magistrate, Chandauli in Case No. 389 of 2024 (Computerized No. D202414180000389) (State Versus Pyari Devi and another), under section 5(ka) of U.P. Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Naugarh, District Chandauli.

Vide impugned order, learned District Magistrate has passed an order confiscating the vehicle i.e. Pick-up bearing Registration No. BR-45 GA-9178, under section 5(A)(7) of the aforesaid Act.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that no offence under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act is made out against the revisionist. The revisionist is the owner of vehicle No. BR-45 GA-9178. The vehicle runs on diesel. It is submitted that the petitioner was earning his livelihood by running the said vehicle and has no other means of survival; hence, the vehicle in question is his sole means of earning.

Learned District Magistrate has passed the impugned order without any basis and any evidence. 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) .

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has 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

CRLR No. 5041 of 2025

2

notification, the Divisional Commissioner is having only the jurisdiction.

From perusal of the record reflects that the date of incident is 02.12.2023 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.

On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that 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.

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.

In view of the foregoing discussion the impugned order of the learned District Magistrate, Ballia dated 07.08.2024, cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside.

The revision succeeds and is allowed.

Let vehicle bearing Registration No. BR-45 GA-9178, be released in favour of the revisionist, if there is no other legal impediment.

February 18, 2026

K.K. Maurya

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad