High Court · 2025

Court No. - 19 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4753 of 2013 Applicant :- Gayyam @ Mohd. Aleem And Anr. Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Firoz Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vivek Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The applicants by means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C have prayed for quashing of the Charge Sheet No.133 of 2012 dated 25.09.2012 arising out of Case Crime No.804 of 2012, under Sections 3/5A/8 of Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 11(gha) of the Animal Cruelty Act, P.S. Rudauli, District Faizabad as well as summoning order dated 09.10.2012 passed by the First Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad in Case No.737 of 2012.

3. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that applicants/accused were transporting four Oxes, and on the information received from the Mukhbir, the police followed the vehicle on which these four Oxes were being transported. The police caught the person seated besides the driver seat and two persons accompanying the driver fled away. The further allegation in the F.I.R. is that hand and mouth of the Oxes were tighten by rope due to which, Oxes were in severe pain. The further allegation in the F.I.R. is that on being inquiry, the police team was told that Oxes were purchased by one Gayyam, and these Oxes were being transported for the purpose of slaughtering. Thereafter, the Oxes were taken into custody. Accordingly, the Fard Report was prepared and charge sheet against the accused was filed.

4. Challenging the charge sheet, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that transportation of Oxes is not an offence under the U.P. Prevention Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1955'), therefore, prosecution case set up against the applicants is malicious. It is contended that so far as F.I.R. under Section 11(d) of the The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1960') is concerned, there is no injury report to the animals. Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention has placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Kailash Yadav and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2009 (2) ALJ 263.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that from the reading of F.I.R., offence under Sections 3/5A/8 of the Act, 1955 is made out against the applicants. It is contended that offence under Section 11(d) of the Act, 1960 is also made out against the applicants inasmuch as it is the specific case in the F.I.R. that legs and mouth of the Oxes were tighten so badly which were causing severe pain and sufferings to the Oxes, therefore, it is submitted that it is not a case where this Court should exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings.

6. Be that as it may, this Court in the case of Kailash Yadav (supra) has held that transportation of cow is not an offence. Paragraph nos.10 and 11 of the said udgement are reproduced herein below:- "10. As mentioned herein above, the allegations made in the First Information Report lodged at P. S.Nanahra on 20-12-2004, in brief, are that the accused Radhey Shyam Yadav, Subhash Navik, Baladin Pasi, Ramesh Yadav and Chottey Lal Yadav were arrested by the police carrying fifteen bullocks for the purpose of slaughtering. Having regard to the term 'Slaughter' as defined in section 2(d) of Cow Slaughter Act and provisions of Section 3, even if the entire version of FIR is accepted to be true, no offence under Cow Slaughter Act would be made out in this case. Although merely due to caryying the bullocks by the accused persons named in the FIR, it can not be presumed that they were carrying the said cattle for slaughtering, but even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the accused persons were carrying the bullocks for the purpose of slaughtering, then also no offence under Cow Slaughter Act would be made out in present case, because all the bullocks were healthy and neither they were being offered to any other person for staughtering nor any attempt for slaughtering was being made by the accused persons carrying them. No bullock was found maimed and no injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death was caused to any bullock. If the entire version of the FIR is taken to be true on its face value, the case would not travel beyond the stage of preparation, which is not punishable under Cow Slaughter Act or any other law for the time being in force. There was no contravention of section 3 or any other section of Cow Slaughter Act and hence, no offence punishable under section 8 of the said Act would be made out in this case. Attempt to commit the offences described in section 3, section 5 and section 5-A of Cow Slaughter Act is punishable under section 8(2) of the Act. If neither any attempt of slaughtering the cow, bull or bullock is made nor these cattle are offered to any person for slaughtering and if all the cattle during transportation or carrying them on foot remained healthy and no cattle is killed or maimed and no injury sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death is caused to them, then no offence under the Cow Slaughter Act would be made out, even if these cattle are carried with the intention of slaughtering, because intention of the offence of slaughtering is not punishable under any law for the time being in force.

11. Mere transportation of cow, bull or bullock from one place to another place within the State of Uttar Pradesh or carrying them on foot can not amount to 'attempt' of slaughtering and this act at the most can be said to the 'preparation' of slaughtering, which is not punishable under Cow Slaughter Act or any other law for the time being in force. Reference in this regard may be made to the case of Babu v. State of U. P. 1991 (suppl) ACC 110. In that case bullocks were being transported in trucks which were seized at Bihar border. FIR was lodged under sections 5 & 8 of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of Animals' Cruelty Act. It is held by the Allahabad High Court that Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act prohibits slaughter of cow or bullocks and possession of beef, but there is nothing in the act prohibiting preparation for cow slaughtering. It is also held that there can not be reasonable presumption or inference that the bullocks were being transported for slaughtering. In present case also, barring the so called confession of the accused persons before the police, there is no other material on record to show that the seized bullocks were being carried to Bihar for the purpose of slaughtering as alleged in the FIR. An affidavit has been filed in this Revision by the Revisionist Kailash Yadav, who has stated that the Revisionists had purchased the bullocks from different agriculturists by means of sale letters after making payment of reasonable and considerable amount. Annexure-II to the said affidavit is the copy of release application, which was moved by the Revisionists on 24-12-2094 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur. In that application also, it was averred that the applicants had purchased the bullocks from District Jaunpur for agriculture purpose and they had engaged Radhey Shyam Yadav, Subhash Navik, Baladin Pasi, Ramesh Yadav and Chottey Lal on labour for carrying the said bullocks to District Ghazipur. Therefore, keeping all these facts in view, it can not be presumed in the present case that the accused persons were carrying the seized bullocks for slaughtering."

7. In the instant case, perusal of F.I.R. does not suggest that Oxes were found maimed. The F.I.R. also does not indicate that there was any injury suffered by the Oxes which in the ordinary course may cause death.

8. So far as offence under Section 11(d) of the Act, 1960 is concerned, the same is made out from the F.I.R. inasmuch as it is the specific case in the F.I.R. that legs and mouth of Oxes were tighten in a manner that was causing a lot of pain and sufferings to the Oxes. Therefore, from the reading of F.I.R. and Charge Sheet, offence under Section 11 (d) of the Act, 1960 is made out against the applicants.

9. Accordingly, charge sheet is quashed to the extent the applicants are charged under Section 3/5A/8 of the Act, 1955. However, trial in respect of offence under Section 11(d) of the Act, 1960 against the applicants shall continue as the offence under Section 11(d) of the Act, 1960 is made out against the applicants.

10. For the reasons given above, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. SATTYARTH ANAND High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Order Date :- 17.4.2025/Sattyarth

Court No. - 19 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4753 of 2013 Applicant :- Gayyam @ Mohd. Aleem And Anr. Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Firoz Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vivek Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The applicants by means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C have prayed for quashing of the Charge Sheet No.133 of 2012 dated 25.09.2012 arising out of Case Crime No.804 of 2012, under Sections 3/5A/8 of Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 11(gha) of the Animal Cruelty Act, P.S. Rudauli, District Faizabad as well as summoning order dated 09.10.2012 passed by the First Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad in Case No.737 of 2012.

3. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that applicants/accused were transporting four Oxes, and on the information received from the Mukhbir, the police followed the vehicle on which these four Oxes were being transported. The police caught the person seated besides the driver seat and two persons accompanying the driver fled away. The further allegation in the F.I.R. is that hand and mouth of the Oxes were tighten by rope due to which, Oxes were in severe pain. The further allegation in the F.I.R. is that on being inquiry, the police team was told that Oxes were purchased by one Gayyam, and these Oxes were being transported for the purpose of slaughtering. Thereafter, the Oxes were taken into custody. Accordingly, the Fard Report was prepared and charge sheet against the accused was filed.

4. Challenging the charge sheet, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that transportation of Oxes is not an offence under the U.P. Prevention Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1955'), therefore, prosecution case set up against the applicants is malicious. It is contended that so far as F.I.R. under Section 11(d) of the The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1960') is concerned, there is no injury report to the animals. Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention has placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Kailash Yadav and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2009 (2) ALJ 263.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that from the reading of F.I.R., offence under Sections 3/5A/8 of the Act, 1955 is made out against the applicants. It is contended that offence under Section 11(d) of the Act, 1960 is also made out against the applicants inasmuch as it is the specific case in the F.I.R. that legs and mouth of the Oxes were tighten so badly which were causing severe pain and sufferings to the Oxes, therefore, it is submitted that it is not a case where this Court should exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings.

6. Be that as it may, this Court in the case of Kailash Yadav (supra) has held that transportation of cow is not an offence. Paragraph nos.10 and 11 of the said udgement are reproduced herein below:- "10. As mentioned herein above, the allegations made in the First Information Report lodged at P. S.Nanahra on 20-12-2004, in brief, are that the accused Radhey Shyam Yadav, Subhash Navik, Baladin Pasi, Ramesh Yadav and Chottey Lal Yadav were arrested by the police carrying fifteen bullocks for the purpose of slaughtering. Having regard to the term 'Slaughter' as defined in section 2(d) of Cow Slaughter Act and provisions of Section 3, even if the entire version of FIR is accepted to be true, no offence under Cow Slaughter Act would be made out in this case. Although merely due to caryying the bullocks by the accused persons named in the FIR, it can not be presumed that they were carrying the said cattle for slaughtering, but even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the accused persons were carrying the bullocks for the purpose of slaughtering, then also no offence under Cow Slaughter Act would be made out in present case, because all the bullocks were healthy and neither they were being offered to any other person for staughtering nor any attempt for slaughtering was being made by the accused persons carrying them. No bullock was found maimed and no injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death was caused to any bullock. If the entire version of the FIR is taken to be true on its face value, the case would not travel beyond the stage of preparation, which is not punishable under Cow Slaughter Act or any other law for the time being in force. There was no contravention of section 3 or any other section of Cow Slaughter Act and hence, no offence punishable under section 8 of the said Act would be made out in this case. Attempt to commit the offences described in section 3, section 5 and section 5-A of Cow Slaughter Act is punishable under section 8(2) of the Act. If neither any attempt of slaughtering the cow, bull or bullock is made nor these cattle are offered to any person for slaughtering and if all the cattle during transportation or carrying them on foot remained healthy and no cattle is killed or maimed and no injury sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death is caused to them, then no offence under the Cow Slaughter Act would be made out, even if these cattle are carried with the intention of slaughtering, because intention of the offence of slaughtering is not punishable under any law for the time being in force.

11. Mere transportation of cow, bull or bullock from one place to another place within the State of Uttar Pradesh or carrying them on foot can not amount to 'attempt' of slaughtering and this act at the most can be said to the 'preparation' of slaughtering, which is not punishable under Cow Slaughter Act or any other law for the time being in force. Reference in this regard may be made to the case of Babu v. State of U. P. 1991 (suppl) ACC 110. In that case bullocks were being transported in trucks which were seized at Bihar border. FIR was lodged under sections 5 & 8 of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of Animals' Cruelty Act. It is held by the Allahabad High Court that Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act prohibits slaughter of cow or bullocks and possession of beef, but there is nothing in the act prohibiting preparation for cow slaughtering. It is also held that there can not be reasonable presumption or inference that the bullocks were being transported for slaughtering. In present case also, barring the so called confession of the accused persons before the police, there is no other material on record to show that the seized bullocks were being carried to Bihar for the purpose of slaughtering as alleged in the FIR. An affidavit has been filed in this Revision by the Revisionist Kailash Yadav, who has stated that the Revisionists had purchased the bullocks from different agriculturists by means of sale letters after making payment of reasonable and considerable amount. Annexure-II to the said affidavit is the copy of release application, which was moved by the Revisionists on 24-12-2094 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur. In that application also, it was averred that the applicants had purchased the bullocks from District Jaunpur for agriculture purpose and they had engaged Radhey Shyam Yadav, Subhash Navik, Baladin Pasi, Ramesh Yadav and Chottey Lal on labour for carrying the said bullocks to District Ghazipur. Therefore, keeping all these facts in view, it can not be presumed in the present case that the accused persons were carrying the seized bullocks for slaughtering."

7. In the instant case, perusal of F.I.R. does not suggest that Oxes were found maimed. The F.I.R. also does not indicate that there was any injury suffered by the Oxes which in the ordinary course may cause death.

8. So far as offence under Section 11(d) of the Act, 1960 is concerned, the same is made out from the F.I.R. inasmuch as it is the specific case in the F.I.R. that legs and mouth of Oxes were tighten in a manner that was causing a lot of pain and sufferings to the Oxes. Therefore, from the reading of F.I.R. and Charge Sheet, offence under Section 11 (d) of the Act, 1960 is made out against the applicants.

9. Accordingly, charge sheet is quashed to the extent the applicants are charged under Section 3/5A/8 of the Act, 1955. However, trial in respect of offence under Section 11(d) of the Act, 1960 against the applicants shall continue as the offence under Section 11(d) of the Act, 1960 is made out against the applicants.

10. For the reasons given above, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. SATTYARTH ANAND High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Order Date :- 17.4.2025/Sattyarth