 of the Cow Slaughter Act 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.){kind=link}
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court while allowing the petition observed that Section 5-A(1) of the Cow Slaughter Act provision shall come into place when the cow or its progeny is transported from within the State of Uttar Pradesh to any other place outside the State and in that case, permit issued by the authorised officer of the State government shall be required.
A Single Bench of Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Kaliya.
The petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 14.3.2023 passed by District Magistrate, Hardoi whereby the petitioner’s vehicle has been confiscated and the order dated 15.6.2023, passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Mandal, Lucknow by which the appeal filed by him against the order dated 14.3.2023 (Supra) has been rejected.
A further prayer for release of the said vehicle has also been made.
The facts relevant for disposal of the case are that a first information report under sections 3, 5 and 8 of U.P Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 was registered on 2.11.2022 at police station Kachhauna, district Hardoi against named accused persons stating that seven persons were caught red handed while carrying cow and its progeny.
Certain incriminating articles such as two motorcycles, two 12 bore pistols, mobile phones etc were also recovered from the named accused persons. DCM trucks are registered in the name of the petitioner. Relevant documents relating to ownership of the vehicle in question, such as registration certificate, certificate of fitness, insurance paper etc are on record and in the name of the petitioner.
Since the date of seizure, i.e 2.11.2022, the DCM vehicle has been standing at the police station Kachhauna, district Hardoi.
On the basis of the first information report proceedings under section 5-A(7) of the Act against the petitioner were initiated and show cause notice dated 13.12.2022 calling for the reply was served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 17.2.2023 to the show cause notice denying the incident and the allegations levelled against him.
In the reply, it has been stated that he is not named as an accused in the case nor a charge sheet has 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.
The District Magistrate vide impugned order dated 14.3.2023 (supra) 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.
Admitted facts according to the prosecution case are that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle. The petitioner is not accused in the first information report. No charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner and the alleged cows were being transported within the State of UP.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Nothing has been recovered from the vehicle. The impugned orders have been passed without application of mind. The provisions of Section 5- A of the Act are not applicable in the facts of the case.
A.G.A, on the other hand, opposed the submission and contended that the impugned orders have been passed strictly in accordance with Section 5-A(7) of the Act. The vehicle was involved in interState transportation of cows and its progeny and thus, provisions of Section 5-A of the Act have been violated and therefore, the vehicle has rightly been seized. It is submitted that the cows or its progeny cannot be transported inter state, for the purpose of slaughtering without grant of permit as per section 5-A of the Act.
Having heard counsel for the petitioner, A.G.A and going through the record as well as provisions of the Act, the Court found that the moot question involved in this case 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.
“A perusal of section 5-A(1) of the Act shows that the said 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. There is nothing on record to show that the alleged recovered animals, i.e the cows were being transported from within the State of U.P to any other State. Therefore, from the plain reading of section 5-A of the Act, the permit is not required in the peculiar facts of the case.
From perusal of sub sections (1 to 5) of section 5-A of the Act and the law laid down by this court in Kailash Yadav’s case (supra), it is evident that there is no need of permit to transport cow(s) and its progeny within the State of U.P.. Hence, such transportation of cows and its progeny cannot be said to be in violation of the Act. Consequently, it can also not 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. In other words, in case the animals were being transported within the State of U.P, no show cause notice under section 5-A of the Act could have been given.
In the case in hand, 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”, the Court observed while allowing the petition.
“Consequently, the show cause notice dated 13.12.2022 (supra) issued by the District Magistrate, confiscation order dated 14.3.2023 (supra) and the appellate order dated 15.6.2023 (supra) are bad in law, and liable to be and are set aside.
The opposite parties are directed to release the vehicle forthwith in accordance with law on such terms which are deemed appropriate”, the order reads.