State v. Vehicle No

3. At the very outset, learned AGA raised a preliminary objection regarding entertainability of this petition. He stated that challenging the order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the opposite party No. 2/Police in exercise of power Commissioner, Commissionrate Lucknow under under Section-5-(A)(7) U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (in short "Act of 1955"), whereby the Vehicle bearing Registration No. CG 15 CW 7712 (Container) belonging to the petitioner has been confiscated, the instant petition is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case(s) of Rajesh Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others, 2023 SCC OnLine All 458 and Nitesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, 2025 SCC OnLine All 4252.

4. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.

5. The relevant portion of the judgment passed in the case of Rajesh Yadav (supra) reads as under:- "3. A Pick-up, bearing registration number UP65JT6230 which is stated to be registered in the name of the petitioner, was seized as it was found transporting cows. Proceedings under 2 CRLP No. 2128 of 2023 Section 5A(7) of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 were drawn based on the reports of the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector dated 05.11.2022 and

04.11.2022. After hearing the parties, the vehicle was confiscated in favour of the State. The SHO Chandauli has been authorized to auction the vehicle and to deposit the sale proceeds in the relevant account, vide order dated 03.02.2023, passed by the respondent no. 2.

4. The petitioner is aggrieved by this order dated 03.02.2023 and, therefore, this instant petition.

5. The contention of learned AGA is that the writ petition is not maintainable and that the order impugned is, revisable.

6. For considering the issue raised, it would be relevant to refer Section 5A of the Act which deals with regulation of transport of cows etc. The relevant Section is Sub-section 7 which reads as follows:— “(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 officers. The concerned District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police will do all proceedings of confiscation and release, as the case may be.”

7. Also relevant for the purposes of this writ petition is sub-section 11 which is quoted below:— “(11) Where the provisions of this Act or the related rules in context of search, acquisition, disposal seizure silent, relevant provisions Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 shall be effective thereto.”

8. Perusal of Sub-section 7 reveals that the District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police has been authorized to deal with proceedings of confiscation and release of a vehicle. No appeal or revision is provided against such order. However, in view of Section 11 which provides that where the Act of relevant rules in context of search, acquisition, disposal and seizure are silent, the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply.

9. Under the circumstances, the submission of learned AGA appears to have force. The order impugned in the writ petition would, therefore, be revisable under Section of Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follows:— “Section 397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision. (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order,- recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation.- All Magistrates whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of section 398. (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. 3 CRLP No. 2128 of 2023 (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.”

10. Under the circumstances and since the order impugned is a final order, we are constrained to hold that against the impugned order, the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy of filing a revision under Section 397 Cr. P.C."

6. The relevant portion of the judgment passed in the case of Nitesh Kumar (supra) reads as under:- "6. Confronted with the above notification dated 15.10.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that he may be permitted to file a criminal revision against the impugned order before Divisional Commissioner and it was also prayed that delay occurred under the above circumstances be also condoned.

7. After hearing the counsel the parties, it becomes apparent that U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 does not provide any forum of appeal or revision against the order of confiscation regarding the seized vehicle passed by the District Magistrate. It is trite law that if any judicial or quasi judicial order is passed against a party, then he must have a forum to vindicate his grievances. A party cannot be left in lurch in case any such order is passed against him. From the perusal of the order passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9028 of 2021, it is evident that the said order was passed on 26.4.2024 when no such forum was available for a party to challenge the confiscation order passed by the District Magistrate in U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. It appears that the said lacuna which occurred due to oversight of the legislature was rectified later on by issuing a notification dated 15.10.2024.

8. We have also perused the above notification which is reproduced herein below:— UTTAR PRADESH SHASAN Grih (Police) Anubhag-9 In pursuance of the provisions of clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution of India, the Governor is pleased to order the publication of the following English translation of Notification no. U.0./77/VI-P-9-2024 dated 15 October, 2024. NOTIFICATION No. U.O./77 U.O-/VI-P-9-2024 Lucknow: Dated: 15 October, 2024 In exercise of the powers under sub-section (5) of section 5-A of Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (U.P. Act no. 1 of 1956) read with section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act no. 1 of 1904), the Governor is pleased to authorise the Divisional Commissioner to satisfy himself at any time as to the legality or propriety of the action taken under the section 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (U.P. Act no. I of 1956), call for and examine the record of any case and pass such order thereon as he may deem fit. The aforesaid power shall be exercised within the limit of the respective districts of the Divisional Commissioners. It is further Clarified that aforesaid authority Conferred to Division Commissioner may be 4 CRLP No. 2128 of 2023 know as Revisional Jurisdication. By Order, (Rajesh kumar) Secretary. Signed by Rajesh Kumar Date: 15-10-2024 14:44:39

9. In light of the aforesaid notification, it is very much clear that a criminal revision before Divisional Commissioner alone will lie against the confiscation order passed by the District Magistrate in U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. Hence, the present criminal writ against the impugned order after the said notification is not maintainable as petitioner has equal and efficacious remedy to ventilate his grievances. However, we are of the view that the above notification which was issued on 15.10.2024 would not have come to the notice of the petitioner. Therefore we find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the proper forum for filing a criminal revision within a month from the date of order and if petitioner approaches the forum as directed by this Court, the concerned Division Commissioner will entertain his revision without going into the question of limitation."

7. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court finds it appropriate to dispose of this petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the proper forum for filing a criminal revision within a month from the date of order and if petitioner approaches the forum as directed by this Court, the concerned Division Commissioner will entertain his revision without going into the question of limitation.

8. With the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of finally. October 27, 2025 Arun/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. At the very outset, learned AGA raised a preliminary objection regarding entertainability of this petition. He stated that challenging the order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the opposite party No. 2/Police in exercise of power Commissioner, Commissionrate Lucknow under under Section-5-(A)(7) U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (in short "Act of 1955"), whereby the Vehicle bearing Registration No. CG 15 CW 7712 (Container) belonging to the petitioner has been confiscated, the instant petition is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case(s) of Rajesh Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others, 2023 SCC OnLine All 458 and Nitesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, 2025 SCC OnLine All 4252.

4. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.

5. The relevant portion of the judgment passed in the case of Rajesh Yadav (supra) reads as under:- "3. A Pick-up, bearing registration number UP65JT6230 which is stated to be registered in the name of the petitioner, was seized as it was found transporting cows. Proceedings under 2 CRLP No. 2128 of 2023 Section 5A(7) of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 were drawn based on the reports of the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector dated 05.11.2022 and

04.11.2022. After hearing the parties, the vehicle was confiscated in favour of the State. The SHO Chandauli has been authorized to auction the vehicle and to deposit the sale proceeds in the relevant account, vide order dated 03.02.2023, passed by the respondent no. 2.

4. The petitioner is aggrieved by this order dated 03.02.2023 and, therefore, this instant petition.

5. The contention of learned AGA is that the writ petition is not maintainable and that the order impugned is, revisable.

6. For considering the issue raised, it would be relevant to refer Section 5A of the Act which deals with regulation of transport of cows etc. The relevant Section is Sub-section 7 which reads as follows:— “(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 officers. The concerned District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police will do all proceedings of confiscation and release, as the case may be.”

7. Also relevant for the purposes of this writ petition is sub-section 11 which is quoted below:— “(11) Where the provisions of this Act or the related rules in context of search, acquisition, disposal seizure silent, relevant provisions Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 shall be effective thereto.”

8. Perusal of Sub-section 7 reveals that the District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police has been authorized to deal with proceedings of confiscation and release of a vehicle. No appeal or revision is provided against such order. However, in view of Section 11 which provides that where the Act of relevant rules in context of search, acquisition, disposal and seizure are silent, the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply.

9. Under the circumstances, the submission of learned AGA appears to have force. The order impugned in the writ petition would, therefore, be revisable under Section of Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follows:— “Section 397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision. (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order,- recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation.- All Magistrates whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of section 398. (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. 3 CRLP No. 2128 of 2023 (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.”

10. Under the circumstances and since the order impugned is a final order, we are constrained to hold that against the impugned order, the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy of filing a revision under Section 397 Cr. P.C."

6. The relevant portion of the judgment passed in the case of Nitesh Kumar (supra) reads as under:- "6. Confronted with the above notification dated 15.10.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that he may be permitted to file a criminal revision against the impugned order before Divisional Commissioner and it was also prayed that delay occurred under the above circumstances be also condoned.

7. After hearing the counsel the parties, it becomes apparent that U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 does not provide any forum of appeal or revision against the order of confiscation regarding the seized vehicle passed by the District Magistrate. It is trite law that if any judicial or quasi judicial order is passed against a party, then he must have a forum to vindicate his grievances. A party cannot be left in lurch in case any such order is passed against him. From the perusal of the order passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9028 of 2021, it is evident that the said order was passed on 26.4.2024 when no such forum was available for a party to challenge the confiscation order passed by the District Magistrate in U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. It appears that the said lacuna which occurred due to oversight of the legislature was rectified later on by issuing a notification dated 15.10.2024.

8. We have also perused the above notification which is reproduced herein below:— UTTAR PRADESH SHASAN Grih (Police) Anubhag-9 In pursuance of the provisions of clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution of India, the Governor is pleased to order the publication of the following English translation of Notification no. U.0./77/VI-P-9-2024 dated 15 October, 2024. NOTIFICATION No. U.O./77 U.O-/VI-P-9-2024 Lucknow: Dated: 15 October, 2024 In exercise of the powers under sub-section (5) of section 5-A of Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (U.P. Act no. 1 of 1956) read with section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act no. 1 of 1904), the Governor is pleased to authorise the Divisional Commissioner to satisfy himself at any time as to the legality or propriety of the action taken under the section 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (U.P. Act no. I of 1956), call for and examine the record of any case and pass such order thereon as he may deem fit. The aforesaid power shall be exercised within the limit of the respective districts of the Divisional Commissioners. It is further Clarified that aforesaid authority Conferred to Division Commissioner may be 4 CRLP No. 2128 of 2023 know as Revisional Jurisdication. By Order, (Rajesh kumar) Secretary. Signed by Rajesh Kumar Date: 15-10-2024 14:44:39

9. In light of the aforesaid notification, it is very much clear that a criminal revision before Divisional Commissioner alone will lie against the confiscation order passed by the District Magistrate in U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. Hence, the present criminal writ against the impugned order after the said notification is not maintainable as petitioner has equal and efficacious remedy to ventilate his grievances. However, we are of the view that the above notification which was issued on 15.10.2024 would not have come to the notice of the petitioner. Therefore we find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the proper forum for filing a criminal revision within a month from the date of order and if petitioner approaches the forum as directed by this Court, the concerned Division Commissioner will entertain his revision without going into the question of limitation."

7. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court finds it appropriate to dispose of this petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the proper forum for filing a criminal revision within a month from the date of order and if petitioner approaches the forum as directed by this Court, the concerned Division Commissioner will entertain his revision without going into the question of limitation.

8. With the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of finally. October 27, 2025 Arun/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench