High Court

Petitioner :- Bhoopendr Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Home And 5 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Firoz Ahmad Khan,Abdul Alim Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner claiming himself to be the registered owner of the vehicle TATA Truck/ Goods Carrier bearing Registration No. U.P.50-BT1124 requesting to release the same in his favour and the same has been shown to have been confiscated vide order dated 17.02.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, District Sultanpur passed in Case No. 3952 of 2023 D202304680003952) "State Vs. (Computerized No. Bhoopendra Kumar Yadav", arising out of Case Crime No. 198/2023, Under Sections 3/5A/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 Kadipur, District Sultanpur and the appeal preferred against the same has also been rejected by the Commissioner Ayodhya Division vide order dated 4.10.2024 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 642 of 2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the case which has been as cooked up by the prosecution is false, concocted and could not be believed on the touchstone of probability.

4. It is further submitted that still the trial for the criminal case is pending before the competent court and the petitioner has not been held guilty and if the vehicle which is standing under the open sky is deteriorated and even if after long trial the petitioner is acquitted of all the charges the acquittal would be of no avail as in the meantime the vehicle in question would become deteriorated and would not be of any use.

5. It is further submitted that there was no sufficient material available before the District Magistrate, Sultanpur or the appellate court i.e. the Commissioner Ayodhya Division to have confiscated the vehicle in question, thus the same be released in favour of the petitioner.

6. Learned AGA on the other submits that the power of confiscation provided under the relevant provisions of the Cow Slaughter Act is absolute and the same may be used to confiscate the vehicles which were instrumental in either transporting the prohibited animals or were helping such transportation and since this vehicle bearing registration No. (Truck No. UP 44 G 0273) was transporting the prohibited animals , thus no illegality has been committed by the court below.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that on 2.5.2023 a Truck bearing registration No. U.P. 44 G0273, and a Pickup was apprehended along with a white colour Scorpio which was escorting both the aforesaid vehicle and on being searched prohibited animals were recovered from the pick up as well as from the truck and the petitioner along with other co-accused persons are shown to have been arrested on the spot and a case under Sections 3/5A/8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 as well as under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act was registered at case Crime No. 198 of 2023. The contention of the petitioner who is the owner of the Truck Bearing No. UP 44 G 0273 is that the vehicle was not transporting any prohibited animals and it is only on the confessional statement of the co-accused persons and the petitioner which is shown to have been recorded while they were in the custody of police their involvement of the vehicle is being made and also that the criminal liability of the petitioner is yet to be adjudicated before a competent court of law and before that there is no presumption that the vehicle in question was being used for the transportation of any prohibited animals.

8. It is further submitted that the transportation of prohibited animals is not an offence under the Cow Slaughter Act if the animals are being transported within the territory of Uttar Pradesh and, it is only when such animals are being transported out of the State, a license is required to be obtained from the Appropriate Authority and the relevant provisions of Cow Slaughter Act would attract only thereafter.

9. All these submissions which have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner would better be appreciated by the trial court at an appropriate stage when the evidence of the parties would culminate before the trial court. So far as passing of the impugned orders by both the courts below is concerned, it is to be recalled that the Truck bearing registration No. U.P. 44 G 0273 is admittedly has not been detained from any border area of the State. It also appears to be an admitted situation that the truck in question is owned by the petitioner as is reflected from the registration certificate, a copy of which has been placed on record.

10. It is also highlighted that when the truck, which is shown to have been apprehended, has not been allegedly detained from any border area of the State, there is no presumption that the animals even if they are being transported by the use of such vehicle, were being transported outside of the State from inside Uttar Pradesh for the purpose of slaughter. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Mudaliar Vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 2003 SC 638 as well as on the law laid down by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in Omprakash vs. State of U.P.; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.293 of 2024 dated 06.03.2024 and Nitin Singh vs. State of U.P.; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.28598 of 2021 dated 03.04.2024 in order to show that when Section 5A of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 is not applicable, the confiscation proceedings undertaken by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur and as confirmed by the Commissioner, Ayodhya is itself an abuse of process of law and has been passed in utter disregard to the settled principles of law.

11. The impugned order appears to have been passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur under Section 5-A (7) of the Cow Slaughter Act and in the whole of the Cow Slaughter Act no provision of appeal or revision has been provided with regard to any order passed under Section 5-A (7) of the Act, which has been amended vide Amendment Act, 2020 (Act No. 20 of 2020). A perusal of Section 5-A of the Act would evidently reveal that the said Section would be applicable when the cow or its progeny is being transported from within the State of U.P. to any other place outside the State and it is only in that scenario a permit is required to be taken for such transportation from an appropriate/authorized officer. Prima facie, there appears nothing on record specifically in the First Information Report which may justify a presumption which appears to have been drawn by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur that the truck/vehicle was being used in violation of Section 5-A of the Act, as the truck/vehicle has been apprehended allegedly within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, which is not situated at the border of the Uttar Pradesh.

12. Thus, prima facie, it is reflected that for transportation of such animals even if they have been apprehended at Sultanpur no permit was required and in this regard the District Magistrate, Sultanpur appears to be in some confusion or misconception that a permit is required for transportation of animals of cow progeny even within the State of U.P. A coordinate Bench of this Court in Omprakash (supra) and Nitin Singh (supra) have dealt this issue in depth and have found that there is absolutely no necessity of obtaining any permit in transportation of prohibited animals within the State of Uttar Pradesh. Thus the invocation of Section 5-A of the Act against the petitioner appears to be prima facie not sustainable subject to final outcome of the trial which may be pending before the trial court. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court the District Magistrate, Sultanpur should have waited for the outcome of the trial court after conclusion of the trial and in the meantime the impugned vehicle should have been released in favour of the petitioner as the confiscation made even before the conviction of the petitioner would render the vehicle useless if the same will stand idle in open sky for a considerable period of time as has occurred in the instant case. In this regard the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Mudaliar (supra) and Jai Prakash Vs. State of U.P., 1992 AWC 1744 may be recalled.

13. Thus, having regard to the above, legal and factual matrix and keeping in view the fact that there is no doubt pertaining to the ownership of the petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court no useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle idle after being confiscated by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur by passing impugned order.

14. At this juncture, it is also worthwhile to recall the observations of another Coordinate Bench of this Court in Shakib Vs. State of U.P. (App. U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 23143 of 2021 decided on 25.8.2022 which are being reproduced as under:- "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 5A (6 to 8) reads as follows:- (6) Where the said conveyance has been confirmed to be related to beef by the competent authority or authorized 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. (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 concerned District The Magistrate/Commissioner of Police will do all proceedings of confiscation and release, as the case may be. officers. (8) The cow and its progeny or the beef transported by the seized vehicle shall also be confiscated and seized by the law enforcement concerned District The Magistrate/Commissioner will do all proceedings of the confiscation and release, as the case may be. officers.

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."

15. Thus, having regard to the above factual and legal matrix, I am of the considered view that the impugned order of date 17.02.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur in Case No.3951 / 2023, Computerized Case No.D202304680003951 (State Versus Ram Badan Yadav) and order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the opposite party no.2 i.e. Commissioner Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya in Appeal/Case No.663/2024, Computerized Case No.C2024404000000663 (Ram Badan Yadav Versus State of U.P. and others) may not stand the test of law and is liable to be set aside/quashed.

16. In result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of date 17.02.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur in Case No.3951 / 2023, Computerized Case No.D202304680003951 (State Versus Ram Badan Yadav) and 04.10.2024 passed by the opposite party no.2 i.e. Commissioner Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya in Appeal /Case No.663/2024, Computerized Case No.C2024404000000663 (Ram Badan Yadav Versus State of U.P. and others) are hereby quashed/set aside.

18. The opposite parties are directed to immediately release the vehicle Truck regd. no. UP 44 G 0273 detained in connection with case No. 198/2023, under Sections 3/5A/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 Kadipur, District Sultanpur under the orders of District Magistrate, Sultanpur dated 17.02.2024 in favour of registered owner/petitioner, immediately after obtaining a personal bond and one surety of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the petitioner subject to the condition that petitioner during the pendency of the case before the trial court shall keep the vehicle in his safe custody and produce the same before trial court as and when required and will not alienate the same without permission of Trial Court. Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Muk

Petitioner :- Bhoopendr Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Home And 5 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Firoz Ahmad Khan,Abdul Alim Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner claiming himself to be the registered owner of the vehicle TATA Truck/ Goods Carrier bearing Registration No. U.P.50-BT1124 requesting to release the same in his favour and the same has been shown to have been confiscated vide order dated 17.02.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, District Sultanpur passed in Case No. 3952 of 2023 D202304680003952) "State Vs. (Computerized No. Bhoopendra Kumar Yadav", arising out of Case Crime No. 198/2023, Under Sections 3/5A/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 Kadipur, District Sultanpur and the appeal preferred against the same has also been rejected by the Commissioner Ayodhya Division vide order dated 4.10.2024 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 642 of 2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the case which has been as cooked up by the prosecution is false, concocted and could not be believed on the touchstone of probability.

4. It is further submitted that still the trial for the criminal case is pending before the competent court and the petitioner has not been held guilty and if the vehicle which is standing under the open sky is deteriorated and even if after long trial the petitioner is acquitted of all the charges the acquittal would be of no avail as in the meantime the vehicle in question would become deteriorated and would not be of any use.

5. It is further submitted that there was no sufficient material available before the District Magistrate, Sultanpur or the appellate court i.e. the Commissioner Ayodhya Division to have confiscated the vehicle in question, thus the same be released in favour of the petitioner.

6. Learned AGA on the other submits that the power of confiscation provided under the relevant provisions of the Cow Slaughter Act is absolute and the same may be used to confiscate the vehicles which were instrumental in either transporting the prohibited animals or were helping such transportation and since this vehicle bearing registration No. (Truck No. UP 44 G 0273) was transporting the prohibited animals , thus no illegality has been committed by the court below.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that on 2.5.2023 a Truck bearing registration No. U.P. 44 G0273, and a Pickup was apprehended along with a white colour Scorpio which was escorting both the aforesaid vehicle and on being searched prohibited animals were recovered from the pick up as well as from the truck and the petitioner along with other co-accused persons are shown to have been arrested on the spot and a case under Sections 3/5A/8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 as well as under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act was registered at case Crime No. 198 of 2023. The contention of the petitioner who is the owner of the Truck Bearing No. UP 44 G 0273 is that the vehicle was not transporting any prohibited animals and it is only on the confessional statement of the co-accused persons and the petitioner which is shown to have been recorded while they were in the custody of police their involvement of the vehicle is being made and also that the criminal liability of the petitioner is yet to be adjudicated before a competent court of law and before that there is no presumption that the vehicle in question was being used for the transportation of any prohibited animals.

8. It is further submitted that the transportation of prohibited animals is not an offence under the Cow Slaughter Act if the animals are being transported within the territory of Uttar Pradesh and, it is only when such animals are being transported out of the State, a license is required to be obtained from the Appropriate Authority and the relevant provisions of Cow Slaughter Act would attract only thereafter.

9. All these submissions which have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner would better be appreciated by the trial court at an appropriate stage when the evidence of the parties would culminate before the trial court. So far as passing of the impugned orders by both the courts below is concerned, it is to be recalled that the Truck bearing registration No. U.P. 44 G 0273 is admittedly has not been detained from any border area of the State. It also appears to be an admitted situation that the truck in question is owned by the petitioner as is reflected from the registration certificate, a copy of which has been placed on record.

10. It is also highlighted that when the truck, which is shown to have been apprehended, has not been allegedly detained from any border area of the State, there is no presumption that the animals even if they are being transported by the use of such vehicle, were being transported outside of the State from inside Uttar Pradesh for the purpose of slaughter. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Mudaliar Vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 2003 SC 638 as well as on the law laid down by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in Omprakash vs. State of U.P.; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.293 of 2024 dated 06.03.2024 and Nitin Singh vs. State of U.P.; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.28598 of 2021 dated 03.04.2024 in order to show that when Section 5A of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 is not applicable, the confiscation proceedings undertaken by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur and as confirmed by the Commissioner, Ayodhya is itself an abuse of process of law and has been passed in utter disregard to the settled principles of law.

11. The impugned order appears to have been passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur under Section 5-A (7) of the Cow Slaughter Act and in the whole of the Cow Slaughter Act no provision of appeal or revision has been provided with regard to any order passed under Section 5-A (7) of the Act, which has been amended vide Amendment Act, 2020 (Act No. 20 of 2020). A perusal of Section 5-A of the Act would evidently reveal that the said Section would be applicable when the cow or its progeny is being transported from within the State of U.P. to any other place outside the State and it is only in that scenario a permit is required to be taken for such transportation from an appropriate/authorized officer. Prima facie, there appears nothing on record specifically in the First Information Report which may justify a presumption which appears to have been drawn by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur that the truck/vehicle was being used in violation of Section 5-A of the Act, as the truck/vehicle has been apprehended allegedly within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, which is not situated at the border of the Uttar Pradesh.

12. Thus, prima facie, it is reflected that for transportation of such animals even if they have been apprehended at Sultanpur no permit was required and in this regard the District Magistrate, Sultanpur appears to be in some confusion or misconception that a permit is required for transportation of animals of cow progeny even within the State of U.P. A coordinate Bench of this Court in Omprakash (supra) and Nitin Singh (supra) have dealt this issue in depth and have found that there is absolutely no necessity of obtaining any permit in transportation of prohibited animals within the State of Uttar Pradesh. Thus the invocation of Section 5-A of the Act against the petitioner appears to be prima facie not sustainable subject to final outcome of the trial which may be pending before the trial court. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court the District Magistrate, Sultanpur should have waited for the outcome of the trial court after conclusion of the trial and in the meantime the impugned vehicle should have been released in favour of the petitioner as the confiscation made even before the conviction of the petitioner would render the vehicle useless if the same will stand idle in open sky for a considerable period of time as has occurred in the instant case. In this regard the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Mudaliar (supra) and Jai Prakash Vs. State of U.P., 1992 AWC 1744 may be recalled.

13. Thus, having regard to the above, legal and factual matrix and keeping in view the fact that there is no doubt pertaining to the ownership of the petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court no useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle idle after being confiscated by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur by passing impugned order.

14. At this juncture, it is also worthwhile to recall the observations of another Coordinate Bench of this Court in Shakib Vs. State of U.P. (App. U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 23143 of 2021 decided on 25.8.2022 which are being reproduced as under:- "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 5A (6 to 8) reads as follows:- (6) Where the said conveyance has been confirmed to be related to beef by the competent authority or authorized 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. (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 concerned District The Magistrate/Commissioner of Police will do all proceedings of confiscation and release, as the case may be. officers. (8) The cow and its progeny or the beef transported by the seized vehicle shall also be confiscated and seized by the law enforcement concerned District The Magistrate/Commissioner will do all proceedings of the confiscation and release, as the case may be. officers.

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."

15. Thus, having regard to the above factual and legal matrix, I am of the considered view that the impugned order of date 17.02.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur in Case No.3951 / 2023, Computerized Case No.D202304680003951 (State Versus Ram Badan Yadav) and order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the opposite party no.2 i.e. Commissioner Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya in Appeal/Case No.663/2024, Computerized Case No.C2024404000000663 (Ram Badan Yadav Versus State of U.P. and others) may not stand the test of law and is liable to be set aside/quashed.

16. In result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of date 17.02.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur in Case No.3951 / 2023, Computerized Case No.D202304680003951 (State Versus Ram Badan Yadav) and 04.10.2024 passed by the opposite party no.2 i.e. Commissioner Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya in Appeal /Case No.663/2024, Computerized Case No.C2024404000000663 (Ram Badan Yadav Versus State of U.P. and others) are hereby quashed/set aside.

18. The opposite parties are directed to immediately release the vehicle Truck regd. no. UP 44 G 0273 detained in connection with case No. 198/2023, under Sections 3/5A/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 Kadipur, District Sultanpur under the orders of District Magistrate, Sultanpur dated 17.02.2024 in favour of registered owner/petitioner, immediately after obtaining a personal bond and one surety of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the petitioner subject to the condition that petitioner during the pendency of the case before the trial court shall keep the vehicle in his safe custody and produce the same before trial court as and when required and will not alienate the same without permission of Trial Court. Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Muk