Allowed¶21

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

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2026CRLR/8655/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vehicle confiscation under U.P. Prevention of Cows Slaughter Act, 1955 s. 5(A)(7); District Magistrate Ballia order dated 10.03.2025 set aside; insufficiency of FIR/confession as sole material; Article 300A Constitution right to property; incident of 03.9.2024 predates State notification dated 15.10.2024 (Divisional Commissioner jurisdiction point raised by State citing Nitesh Kumar); Criminal Revision No. 8655 of 2025 allowed; release of Pick-up UP-60 CT-0543 to owner-revisionist.

What did the court decide?

Impugned confiscation order dated 10.03.2025 set aside; vehicle bearing Registration No. UP-60 CT-0543 directed to be released in favour of the revisionist, if there is no other legal impediment. ¶21

Deepak Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned confiscation order dated 10.03.2025 set aside; vehicle bearing Registration No. UP-60 CT-0543 directed to be released in favour of the revisionist, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the confiscation order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Ballia under section 5(A)(7) of the U.P. Prevention of Cows Slaughter Act, 1955 against the revisionist's vehicle (Registration No. UP-60 CT-0543) can be sustained. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

On perusal of the impugned order, there is no oral or documentary evidence regarding the said presumption.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The only material available before the learned District Magistrate was the first information report, which discloses the confession of the revisionist.

¶18

Key takeaways

The date of incident (03.9.2024) preceded the issuance of the State Government notification dated 15.10.2024, so the notification was not in existence when the alleged occurrence took place.ratio¶17
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 violation of that right to property.ratio¶19
The impugned order of the learned District Magistrate, Ballia dated 10.03.2025 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

U.P. Prevention of Cows Slaughter Act, 1955 — confiscation of vehicle under section 5(A)(7) — criminal revision against order dated 10.03.2025 of District Magistrate, Ballia confiscating Pick-up No. UP-60 CT-0543 — no oral or documentary evidence regarding the presumption; only material before the District Magistrate was the FIR disclosing the revisionist's confession — vehicle held to be property within the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and confiscation without reasonable basis held violative of the right to property — date of incident (03.9.2024) preceded the State Government notification dated 15.10.2024 relied on by the State — impugned order set aside; revision allowed; vehicle directed to be released to the revisionist if no other legal impediment.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 8655 of 2025

¶3

Deepak Kumar Yadav

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Kamal Kumar, Sanjay Kumar Srivastava : 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 10.03.2025, passed by learned District Magistrate, District Ballia in Case No. 2863 of 2024 (Computerize Case No. D202415090002863) (State Vs. Deepak Kumar Yadav) under Section 5(ka) of U.P. Prevention of Cows Slaughter Act, 1955 relating to Case Crime No. 240 of 2024, Police Station Narhi, 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 CT-0543, 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 Cow Slaughter Act is made out against the revisionist. The revisionist is the owner of vehicle No. UP-60 CT-0543 and purchased the said vehicle on 10.08.2024. The vehicle was registered in the office of the Regional Transport Office, Ballia, as a goods carrier vehicle, i.e., INTRA V50 PICKUP LX W/O DEF, TATA Motors, on 24.08.2024, and was approved on 29.08.2024. The registration certificate of the vehicle is valid from 24.08.2024 to 23.08.2039. The class of the vehicle is "Goods Carrier," and the ownership is recorded as "Individual (Private)." The vehicle was purchased after obtaining a loan from HDFC Bank, Ballia. The engine number of the vehicle is 5CR12FVXS72549, and the chassis number is MAT535098RYF25802. 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

CRLR No. 8655 of 2025

¶14

¶15

State of U.P. and others (Criminal Revision No. 6781 of 2024, decided on 12.6.2025) .

¶16

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 notification, the Divisional Commissioner is having only the jurisdiction.

¶17

From perusal of the record reflects that the date of incident is 03.9.2024 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 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

In view of the foregoing discussion the impugned order of the learned District Magistrate, Ballia dated 10.03.2025, cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside.

¶21

The revision succeeds and is allowed.

¶22

Let vehicle bearing Registration No. UP-60 CT-0543, be released in favour of the revisionist, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶23

February 11, 2026 K.K. Maurya

¶24

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶25

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Rohit @ Chotu and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sughar Pal Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Alias Manoj Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Akash Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Govind vs State of U.P. and Another

Amar Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another