Allahabad High Court
Vishwanath Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. ... on 4 January, 2023
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3 of 2023
Applicant :- Vishwanath Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Sect. Lko. And 2 Other
Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Mishra,Prashansa Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has filed with prayer to quash/set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 06-12-2022 passed by Sessions Judge, Faizabad in Criminal Revision No. 115 of 2022, Vishwanath Yadav Versus State of U.P. and another, filed by the petitioner and the order dated 08-06-2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Ayodhya, in Case No. 501 of 2022, (Computerized Case No. D202204230000501); State Vs. Vishwanath Yadav; U/s 5 Ka of Cow Slaughter Act arising out of Case Crime No. 04/2022, U/s 5 Ka of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and section 11 of the Animal Cruelty (Prevention) Act, 1960, registered at Police Station-Poorakalandar, District-Ayodhya.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is owner of the vehicle in question and that has been purchased after taking loan and the applicant is repaying the loan on installments. She further added that the vehicle of the applicant has been implicated in the F.I.R. as the police was inimical as the applicant has refused to provide the vehicle to the police for their own use. She added that it is not the case where the beef or any prohibited meat or any other incriminating article was recovered from the vehicle of the applicant. The applicant has purchased the aforesaid vehicle for business purposes and that is only the means of the livelihood of the applicant. She next added that the applicant has been enlarged on bail though the vehicle has been seized by the police. Adding her arguments, she submits that the applicant has moved an application before the District Magistrate, Ayodhya under section 5-A of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act,1955 and that was dismissed by the District Magistrate while recording a perverse finding. She has drawn attention of this court towards the order passed by the District Magistrate and submits that there is no single whisper in the order with respect to the fact that any cow progeny meat was kept in the vehicle of the applicant and or even no incriminating article was recovered. She further added that if the aforesaid vehicle is not released, the same shall become un-utilized and the applicant would not be in a position to repay the amount of loan. She further added that the applicant undertakes that he will provide the vehicle in question as and when required as case property before the authority concerned. She further added that after the order passed by the District Magistrate, the applicant has challenged the same by way of filing Criminal Revision No. 115 of 2022, wherein the same findings have been reiterated and the contentions raised by the applicant, before the revisional court, was ignored and thus, she submits that the orders impugned dated 06-12-2022 as well as 08-06-2022, are liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that it is evident from the F.I.R. itself that the vehicle was recovered by the police and cow progeny meat was recovered from the vehicle in question. He submits that there is no any reason to disbelieve the allegations in the F.I.R. He further submits that the applicant has also failed to substantiate his arguments before both the courts below and thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the courts below.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that the District Magistrate has recorded a finding that the live cow progenies were recovered from the vehicle in question,but, there is no discussion or finding with regard to the fact that whether cow meat(beef) or incriminating article was ever recovered from the vehicle of the applicant and further prima-facie, there seems to be no cogent reason to believe that any incriminating article was kept inside of the vehicle or any prohibited article was recovered from the vehicle in question.
This court has also taken note of the fact that the aforesaid vehicle has been purchased after taking loan by the applicant and he has to repay the loan amount and if after certain period of time, it is found that the vehicle of the present applicant was not involved in committing any offence, then the financial loss caused to the applicant would be irreparable loss to him, which can not be compensated and there shall be for reaching consequences for the applicant. This court has also noticed the fact that the revisional court has also not recorded any finding with regard to the fact that whether any incriminating article or prohibited meat was recovered from the vehicle or further no evidence has been discussed so as to prima-facie find the involvement of the present applicant.
In view of the aforesaid facts, submissions and discussion, the impugned order dated 08-06-2022 as well as order dated 06-12-2022 are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the District Magistrate, Ayodhya, to decide the same afresh while discussing the evidence detailed against the applicant and observations made above and pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of 60 days from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is allowed.
Order Date :- 4.1.2023
AKS
