Shah Mohammad v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Of Home

U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 arising out of case crime no. 20 of 2023 under sections 5, 8 & 3 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act Police Station Kadipur District Sultanpur and further prayed to direct the opposite party authorities to release confiscated/seized vehicle bearing registration no. UP62 T 6574 in favour of the applicant forthwith within a time bound manner as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present matter. He next submitted that the District Magistrate as well as the appellate authority i.e. Commissioner have failed to record the finding that the vehicle was used for carrying out the cow, progenies from one state to another. He submitted that ingredients of offence u/s 5A(1) of Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act 2 A482 No. 9145 of 2025 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1955') would not attract in the present matter. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat 2002 10 SCC 283 and the law rendered in the case of Kalia Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.6826/2023 decided on 06.10.2023. In the aforenoted judgments, it has been held that it is of no use to keep the seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period of time and, therefore, the Magistrate concerned is empowered to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for release of such vehicles, if required at the relevant point of time, and this can be done pending hearing of the applications for return of such vehicles. He submits that the District Magistrate as well as the appellate authority have ignored the ingredients of provisions of 5A(1) of the Act 1955 and have rejected the application of the applicant for release of the vehicle, therefore, submission is that the orders passed by the District Magistrate and appellate authority are erroneous, thus, the same may be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid, but he has failed to substantiate his arguments that there is any evidence against the applicant that the vehicle in question were being deployed from one state to another, while having cow, progenies or the beef. Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the provisions of section 5A(1) of the Act 1955 has escaped the attention of both the authorities i.e. Commissioner and District Magistrate, while passing the orders impugned herein. Section 5A(1) of the Act 1955 reads as under:- "5A. (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 authorized by the State Government in this behalf by notified order and except in accordance with the terms and conditions of such permit." I have also considered the statement of counsel for the State that there is no 3 A482 No. 9145 of 2025 evidence collected by the Investigating Officer that the cow, progenies were being carried out by the vehicle in question from one state to another. In this view, the orders impugned dated 05.03.2025 and 20.08.2024 are unsustainable and are hereby quashed. The District Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order considering the relevant provision of law, within period of eight weeks, from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before him. The present application is allowed at the admission stage as the point of law is decided herein. April 8, 2026 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.)