Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed against the order dated 14-3-2023 passed by District Magistrate, wherein the Court confiscated the petitioner’s vehicle, and the order dated 15-6-2023, passed by the Commissioner, wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14-3-2023 has been rejected, Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. has said that it is evident that the cow and its progeny were not being transported from within the State to outside State, therefore, the provisions of section 5-A of the Act are not attracted. Consequently, the show cause notice issued by the District Magistrate, confiscation order dated 14-3-2023 and the appellate order dated 15-6-2023 are bad in law and are set aside. Further, it directed the opposite parties to release the vehicle forthwith in accordance with law.
In this case, the first information report was registered under Sections 3, 5 and 8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (‘Act, 1955’) stating that seven persons were caught red handed while carrying cow and its progeny. Certain incriminating articles such as two motorcycles, two bore pistols, mobile phones etc. were also recovered from the accused persons. The District Magistrate vide impugned order dated 14-03-2023 in exercise of powers under section 5-A(7) has confiscated the vehicle in favour of the State Government while recording a finding that the aforesaid vehicle was being used for slaughtering the cows and its progeny and were being transported for the aforesaid purpose, hence, provisions of the Act have been violated. The appellate court did not find any illegality in the impugned order and upheld the order passed by the District Magistrate.
The petitioner submitted stated that he is not a named accused in the case nor has a charge sheet been filed against him. The vehicle in question has not been used for transportation of the cows and its progeny. No beef has been recovered from the vehicle. He is the registered owner of the vehicle and has been falsely implicated as he opposed the illegal extortion committed by the police and thus it is prayed that the vehicle be released.
In this case, the issue is whether the petitioner has violated any provision of law in transportation of cows and its progeny by the aforesaid vehicle and whether the impugned orders have been passed confiscating the said vehicle in accordance with law?
The Court took note of Section 5-A of the Act and said that this provision shall come into place when the cow or its progeny is transported from within the State of U.P. to any other place outside the State and in that case, permit issued by the authorised officer of the State government shall be required.
The Court said that there is nothing on record to show that the alleged recovered animals, i.e., the cows, were being transported within the State of U.P. to any other State. Therefore, according to Section 5-A of the Act, the permit is not required in the peculiar facts of this case.
The Court referred to Kailash Yadav v. State of U.P., 2008 SCC OnLine All 1167, wherein it has been held that no permit is required for transportation of cow or its progeny within the State of U.P.
After perusal Section 5-A of the Act and the law laid down in Kailash Yadav’s case (supra), the Court said that there is no need for a permit to transport cow and its progeny within the State of U.P. Hence, such transportation of cow and its progeny cannot be said to be in violation of the Act. Consequently, it cannot be said that the seized vehicle has been used in violation of Section 5-A or any other provision of the Act. Therefore, the police have no power or jurisdiction to seize or confiscate the vehicle in question and the District Magistrate also could not have issued notice under section 5-A of the Act when there is nothing to substantiate that the animals were being transported from within the State to some other State.
[Kaliya v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine All 1974, Order dated 06-10-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Farhan Alam Osmany, Advocate Abdl Muqeet Khan
Counsel for Respondent: Government Advocate
