Allahabad High Court
Pooja Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 February, 2025
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20501
Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6372 of 2024
Revisionist :- Pooja Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Buddha Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. By means of this criminal revision, the revisionist has prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 16.08.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Ballia in Case No.1988 of 2024, (Computerized Case No.D202415090001988(State vs. Pooja Singh), under Section 5A of U.P. Prevention of Cows Slaughter Act, 1955, whereby the vehicle (Pick-up) of the revisionist bearing No.UP-60/BT-4983 has been confiscated in favour of the State. The revisionist has further prayed to direct the authority concerned to release the vehicle (Pick-up) bearing No.UP-60/BT-4983 in favour of the revisionist.
3. At the very outset, learned Additional Government Advocate has raised an objection placing reliance of the notification/ clarification dated 15.10.2024 issued by the Government of U.P.,Department of Home (Police), Anubhag-9, Lucknow to the effect that the Commissioner of Range is having revisional power against the order of the District Magistrate making seizure of the vehicle wherein the progeny of the cow being transported in an illegal manner.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has stated that the vehicle of the revisionist has been falsely seized as no illegal transportation of some Milch Cows (Dudharu Animals) were being done in her vehicle bearing No.UP-60/BT-4983. The alleged occurrence is said to have been taken place on 16.04.2024 and the First Information Report was lodged on the same day i.e. 16.04.2024 under Section 3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cows Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 bearing Case Crime No.141 of 2024, Police Station-Ubhaon, District-Ballia. The present revisionist is a registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle and all the required formalities including fitness, goods tax etc. are completed. After seizure of the vehicle the Investigating Officer completed investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the present revisionist and the learned trial court has taken cognizance on the aforesaid charge-sheet. The notice was issued to the revisionist. Since the vehicle in question is a public vehicle and it was the source of livelihood of the revisionist and her family members, therefore an application was filed before the District Magistrate, Ballia seeking release of the aforesaid vehicle.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has stated that the aforesaid vehicle is not only the source of livelihood of the present revisionist and her family members but also the same comes within the definition of property, therefore, such vehicle may not be seized for unlimited period. Therefore, such seizure is not only violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India but also violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Besides, the vehicle is a perishable item and if the same is kept in an abandoned condition at police station, it will loose its entire value, whereas the present revisionist is ready to furnish/ submit the appropriate surety and bonds to get the aforesaid vehicle released in her favour with the undertaking that as and when the same will be required it will be produced before the authority concerned. The Competent Authority/ District Magistrate concerned rejected the aforesaid application of the revisionist without appreciating the factual and legal matrix of the issue.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also stated that if any public carrier runs on road, not only the owner of the vehicle but the State Authority earns in the shape of revenue being deposited in various heads, therefore, it is loss of the State Authority also for no fruitful purposes. Learned counsel has stated that since the trial is going on where the present revisionist is cooperating properly and there is no likelihood to conclude the trial shortly, so making seizure of the vehicle for unlimited period would be detrimental to the revisionist as well as to the State also. The reliance has been placed upon the judgments of this Court rendered in the case in re: Criminal Revision No.4956 of 2023; Vaseem Ahmad vs. State of U.P. & another reported [2024 (126) ACC 397] and the judgment dated 23.10.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No.1429 of 2024;Munib vs. State of U.P. and 02 others, whereby this Court more or less in an identical circumstances granted relief to the owner of the vehicle.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has stated on the basis of specific instructions from his client that the aforesaid vehicle has not been subjected to auction as on today i.e. 13.02.2025.
8. However, learned Additional Government Advocate has stated that he has no instructions on that point as to whether the vehicle in question has been subjected to auction or not.
9. Be that as it may, since the vehicle in question is a public carrier, the same is perishable in nature; the vehicle in question does not earn for the owner of the vehicle but various State Authorities receive the revenue out of this vehicle if the vehicle in question runs on the road, as per mandate of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India no one shall be deprived on his property except in accordance with law; since the vehicle in question is directed related to the livelihood of the revisionist and his family members, therefore, the vehicle owner has got fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution; the trial is going on in the issue in question and there is no possibility to conclude the same shortly and the undertaking of the revisionist that he is ready to furnish/ submit appropriate surety and bonds for getting the aforesaid vehicle released, therefore, considering the judgments on the subject as aforesaid i.e. Vaseem Ahmad (supra) and Munib (supra), I find it appropriate that the vehicle of the revisionist bearing No.UP-60/BT-4983 be released in her favour on her furnishing surety and bonds to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- (Two lakh fifty thousand) after verifying those sureties properly before releasing the same with the condition that as and when the aforesaid vehicle / case property of the case crime is required by the Competent Authority/ Court concerned, the same shall be produced before the Authority/ Court concerned and no such type of transportation shall be done by the revisionist, failing which, the benefit of this order would not be applicable in favour of the revisionist.
10. It is made clear that if the aforesaid vehicle has been subjected to auction and the sale has been confirmed on or before 13.02.2025, the benefit of this order would not be given to the revisionist.
11. Therefore, the present revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.08.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Ballia is hereby set aside/ quashed.
12. No order as to the cost.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Order Date :- 13.2.2025
Suresh/
