Abdul Rab v. State of U.P. and Another

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

Heard Sri Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

The instant application has been preferred to quash the impugned judgement and order dated 21.03.2025 passed by learned Session Judge, Chandauli in Criminal Revision No.190 of 2024 (Abdul Rab vs. State of U.P.) as well as impugned order dated 03.12.2024 passed by District Magistrate, Chandauli in Case No.950 of 2024 (Computerized Case No. D202414180000950) (State vs. Abdul Rab) under section 5(ka) of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 arising out of Case Crime No.379 of 2023, under sections 3/5A/5B/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act along with section 429 I.P.C., P.S. Alinagar, District- Chandauli.

It is the case of applicant the initially he has not been implicated in the F.I.R., which has been registered as Case Crime No.379 of 2023 in pursuance to sections 3/5A/5B/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act along with section 429 I.P.C., which culminated into preferring charge-sheet by concerned Investigating Officer and during investigation the vehicle in question in shape of truck (DCM) bearing no. UP-63-BT-1248 which was confiscated and later on after implication of the applicant being the truck owner at the stage of preferring charge-sheet, the same was put to auction and at the time of considering the release application, which has been dismissed vide order dated 03.12.2024 passed in Case No.950 of 2024 by way of permitting the applicant to participate in the same auction proceeding for seeking custody of his truck bearing no. UP-63-BT-1248.

While challenging both the impugned orders, learned counsel for applicant submitted a very vital fact that the truck in question has already been under hypothication with the concerned bank through the financial assistance, which has already been sought by the applicant only for the purpose of purchase of truck bearing no.UP-63-BT-1248 and as such it is the bank who is having first charge over the truck in question and the same cannot be put to auction without seeking prior and formal approval by the concerned bank and secondly from the applicant who is the bonafide purchaser of the truck against whom the registration certificate has been duly issued by the office of Regional Transport Officer, competent authority to register the vehicle against specific names.

Learned counsel for applicant also raised a legal issue that power vest with the competent authority is only to release and confiscate the property in question and power vest specifically under sections 5A(7) and (8) of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, wherein specifically under section 5(A)(8), it is the District Magistrate/Commissioner, who is authorized to proceed of the confiscation and release as the case may be and as such order dated 21.03.2025 and 03.12.2024 are not sustainable in the eye of law, since the concerned District Magistrate while passing order dated 03.12.2024 exceeded its limit by way of rejecting the application and at the same time putting the vehicle in question into auction which is not permissible in the eye of law.

The above-mentioned attraction of sections 5A(7) and (8) has not been given any credence by learned court of District and Session Judge, Chandauli while passing order dated 21.03.2025 and as such the same has also been highlighted by learned counsel for applicant as bad in the eye of law.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application, but did not rebut the stand taken up by learned counsel for applicant that the power does not vest with the competent authority prescribed under sections 5A(7) and (8) of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 through which the vehicle in question can be confiscated and release only, so far as other proceedings carried out by District Magistrate, Chandauli as well as passing order dated 03.12.2024 is concerned, crystal clearly proves that the same is not permitted specifically under sections 5A(8) of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.

On the basis of instructions received, learned counsel for applicant submitted that his client is ready to furnish the surety to the satisfaction of learned court concerned at the time of seeking release of vehicle in his favour and will be abide by the terms and conditions whatsoever has been fixed by this Court also.

Considering the facts and circumstances raised by learned counsel for the parties and in the light of strict provisions contained under sections 5A(8) of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 as well as the specific facts related to the matter that truck in question is already hypothecated by the concerned bank and the applicant being the owner of vehicle is ready to furnish the surety upto the satisfaction of learned court concerned, the impugned orders dated 03.12.2024 and 21.03.2025 passed by District Magistrate, Chandauli and learned Session Judge, Chandauli, respectively are hereby set-aside.

Learned court concerned is hereby directed to release the vehicle in shape of truck no. UP-63-BT-1248 (DCM) in favour of applicant upon furnishing surety upto the satisfaction of learned court concerned and the release of vehicle shall be strictly governed in the terms and conditions as mentioned herein below:- (i) The applicant shall produce the vehicle/truck in question bearing No.UP-63-BT-1248 (DCM) as and when the learned concerned court will require during trial of aforementioned case crime number. (ii) The applicant will not put for sale the vehicle in question by transferring the same to any third party. (iii) The applicant shall also not change the nature and color of the vehicle in question in any manner during pendency of said case crime number. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Saif SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad