[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Smt Premlata Kumari Prajapati vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others on 16 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:84089
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8402 of 2025
Smt Premlata Kumari Prajapati
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Parvesh Kumar Pandey, Sarvesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 53
HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Varanasi, in Case No. 161 of 2025, State vs. Smt. Premlata Kumari Prajapati, under Section 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, as well as the order dated 29.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, in Case No. 493 of 2025, Smt. Premlata Kumari Prajapati vs. State of U.P., under Section 5-A(8) of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, whereby the order of the District Magistrate, Varanasi, confiscating the Tata Pickup No. UP-65-NT-2011, has been affirmed.
2. Factual matrix is that on 25.08.2024 at about 6:59 hours the Vehicle No.UP-65-NT-2011 of the petitioner was checked by the police force of Police Station, Lanka, District Varanasi and it was found to be carrying four bovine animals of which three were cow and one bullock, which were found alive. No beef was found in the above vehicle.
3. Since, according to the prosecution, the above bovine animals were being taken for slaughter, FIR Case No. 329 of 2024 was registered against the Khalasi of the vehicle, Sonu, and the driver, Vinod Kumar, under Sections 3, 5-A, 8, and 5-B of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and Section 325 of the B.N.S. In exercise of the powers conferred under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, the vehicle in question was also confiscated.
4. The petitioner moved an application before the District Magistrate, Varanasi for releasing the above vehicle, but it was rejected on the ground that for carrying the bovine animals, a permit is required, which was not there, which amounts to contravention of the provisions of the Act of 1955 and on this sole ground, the application of the petitioner for releasing the vehicle was rejected. The order was challenged by the petitioner by filing appeal before the Commissioner, which has also been mechanically, without application of mind and ignoring the relevant provisions, has been rejected. Both the orders of the District Magistrate as well as the Commissioner have been impugned by the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither any dead bovine animal nor any beef was found in the vehicle of the petitioner, which was carrying milch animals, as such, no offence is made out under the Act. The police only on the alleged apprehension that the animals were being taken for slaughter has apprehended and seized the vehicle, which was wholly illegal but the District Magistrate and the Commissioner have failed to appreciate this fact and have illegally justified the confiscation of the alleged vehicle, which is perverse, which is liable to be set aside by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Per contra, the learned AGA has failed to assist the Court. Despite repeated requests to place their stand on record, they expressed their inability to assist the Court.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders and the documents submitted with this writ petition.
8. The Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 deals with the manner, in which, the bovine animals(cows,bull or bullock) are to be transported and the relevant Section 5-A reads as under:
"5A.Regulation on transport of cow, etc.-(1) No person shall transport or offer for transport or cause to be transported any cow, or bull or bullock, the slaughter whereof in any place in Uttar Pradesh is punishable under this Act from any place within the State to any place outside the State, except under a permit issued by an officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf by notified order and except in accordance with the terms and conditions of such permit.
(2) Such officer shall issue the permit on payment of such fee not exceeding [five hundred rupees ] for every cow, bull or bullock as may be prescribed :
Provided that no fee shall be chargeable where the permit is for transport of the cow, bull or bullock for a limited period not exceeding six months as may be specified in the permit.
(3) Where the person transporting a cow, bull or bullock on a permit for a limited period does not bring back such cow, bull or bullock into the State within the period specified in the permit, he shall be deemed to have contravened the provision of sub-section (1).
(4) The form of permit, the form of application therefor and the procedure for disposal of such application shall be such as may be prescribed.
(5) The State Government or any officer authorized by it in this behalf by general or special notified order, may, at any time for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself, as to the legality or propriety of the action taken under this section, call for and examine the record of any case and pass such orders thereon as it or he may deem fit.]
[(6) Where the said conveyance has been confirmed to be related to beef by the competent authority or authorised laboratary under this Act, the driver, operator and owner related to transport, shall be charged with the offence under this Act, unless it is not proved that transport medium used in crime, despite all its precautions and without its knowledge, has been used by some other person for causing the offence.
(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.
(8) The cow and its progeny or the beef transported by the seized vehicle shall also be confiscated and seized by the law enforcement officers. The concerned District Magistrate/Commissioner will do all proceedings of the confiscation and release, as the case may be.
(9) The expenditure on the maintenance of the seized cows and its progeny shall be recovered from the accused for a period of one year or till the release of the cow and it's progeny in favour of the owner thereof whichever is earlier.
(10) Where a person is prosecuted for committing abetting, or attempting to an offence under section 3, 5 and 8 of this Act and the beef or cow-remains in the possession of accused has been proved by the prosecution and transported things are confirmed to be beef by the competent authority or authorized laboratory, then the Court shall presume that such person has committed such offence or attempt or abetment of such offence, as the case may be, unless the contrary is proved.
(11) Where the provision of this Act or the related rules in context of search, acquisition, disposal and seizure are silent, the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be effective thereto.]"
9. Further, this Court in the case of Kaliya vs. State of UP And Others 2023 SCC OnLine All 1974, held as under:-
"10. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and going through the record as well as provisions of the Act, I find that the moot question involved in this case is whether the present 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.
11. ***
12. 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.
13. 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 this case.
14. The question involved in the case in hand has also come up for consideration before this court in Kailash Yadav v. State of U.P. 2008 (10) ADJ 623 wherein it has been held that no permit is required for transportation of cow or its progeny within the State of U.P. Section 5-A(6 to 8) provides for confiscation and release of vehicle by which beef or cow and its progeny is transported in violation of the provisions of the Act and relevant rules.
15. 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 cow 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 has 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.
16. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 25.8.2022 passed in Mohd. Shakib v. State of U.P. Application under section 482 CrPC No. 23143 of 2021 has held that no permit is required to transport cow and its progeny within the State of U.P. and therefore, it cannot be said that the seized vehicle in question was used in violation of section 5A(1) to (11) or any provisions of the Cow Slaughter Act. Relevant paras 12 and 13 of the judgment in Mohd. Shakib's case (supra) is reproduced as below:
?12. Now, it is to be considered whether permit is required for transportation of the cow or its progeny within the State of Uttar Pradesh. This question came up for consideration before this Court in Criminal Revision No. 131 of 2005 (Kailash Yadav v. State of U.P., 2008 (10) ADJ 623), wherein it is held that no permit is required for transportation of cow or its progeny within the State of Uttar Pradesh. Sub-section 5A (6 to 8) provides for confiscation and release of vehicle by which beef or cow and its progeny is transported in violation of the provision of this Act and the relevant rules. Sub-section 5A (6 to 8) reads as follows:?
(6) Where the said conveyance has been confirmed to be related to beef by the competent authority or authorised laboratory under this Act, the driver, operator and owner related to transport, shall be charged with the offence under this Act, unless it is not proved that the transport medium used in crime, despite all its precautions and without its knowledge, has been used by some other person for causing the offence.
(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.
(8) The cow and its progeny or the beef transported by the seized vehicle shall also be confiscated and seized by the law enforcement officers. The concerned District Magistrate/Commissioner will do all proceedings of the confiscation and release, as the case may be.
13. From the perusal of sub-section (1 to 5) of Section 5A of this Act and the law laid down by this Court in Kailash Yadav v. State of U.P. (supra), it is abundantly clear that there is no need of permit to transport cow and its progeny within the state of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, transportation of a cow and its progeny within the state of Uttar Pradesh is not a violation of any of the provisions of the Cow Slaughter Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the seized vehicle in question was used in violation of Section 5A (1) to (11) or any provisions of the Cow Slaughter Act, and therefore, police has no power or jurisdiction to seize or confiscate the vehicle in question. The District Magistrate, Varanasi has passed the impugned confiscation order dated 18.08.2021 in contravention of the law, as no permit is required to transport cow and its progeny within the state of Uttar Pradesh. In above circumstances, the impugned order dated 18.08.2021 passed by District Magistrate, Varanasi is without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set-aside. Likewise, the revisional court has not considered the relevant provisions of Section 5A of Cow Slaughter Act while dismissing the criminal revision of the applicant, therefore, the impugned order dated 13.10.2021 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Chandauli is also against the provisions of law and is liable to be set-aside.?
(emphasis supplied)
10. This court again in the case of Munib vs. State of UP and 2 others 2024 SCC OnLine All 9631 held as under:-
"12. Thus transportation of cow etc. is regulated by Section 5A and Section 5A(7) confers power upon the District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police to confiscate 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. A perusal of the F.I.R. indicates that none of the cow were maimed nor physically injured. Further, the allegation that they were being transported to West Bengal from Prayagraj for slaughtering requires no consideration as the condition precedent for the application of the section is that the cattle described in the Act should have been transported from any place in the State of U.P. to any place outside the State. Even if the story of seizure of cattle is believed then also 06 cattle are said to have been seized within the jurisdiction of Police Station Lalganj District Mirzapur namely within the State of Uttar Pradesh and admittedly, the border is far away. The fact remains that cattle were apprehended from within the State of U.P. and, therefore, it cannot be said that they were transported to a place outside the State of U.P.
13. ..Commission of offence is one of the requisite ingredients for passing an order of confiscation and an order of confiscation should not be passed automatically. Thus, there is no material, as exist on record, to justify the exercise of powers under Sub Section 7 of Section 5A. The same is clearly contrary to the mandates and powers conferred upon the District Magistrate.
14. The confiscation by its very connotation implies depriving a person of his property to which he is entitled to retain. Article 300A of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. Arbitrary confiscation of the property which he might be using for his trade, profession or occupation is a serious encroachment on the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India to carry on his trade, occupation or business. The procedure prescribed by law for confiscating the property as contained in Section 5A(7) of the Cow Slaughter Act, empowers the District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police to confiscate/seize the vehicle only if the conditions so prescribed under Sub Section 7 of Section 5A are fulfilled."
(emphasis supplied)
11. It is apparent that Section 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 only prohibits the transportation of cow,bull or bullock from within the State to any place outside the State. There is no bar or prohibition of transporting the above animals within the State. This Court has gone through the entire Act and has failed to notice any provision, which prohibits the transportation of animals within the State. Further, no beef or any dead bovine animal has been found in the vehicle of the petitioner.
12. It cannot be presumed that the petitioner was transporting the bovine animals for slaughter outside the State. The Act of 1955 is a penal provision of which strict interpretation is required and the burden lies upon the State to prove that the bovine animals were being transported for slaughter outside the State, which the State has utterly failed to prove.
13. It is apparent that the condition precedent for attracting the provisions of the Act of 1955 was missing, but still the State has illegally confiscated the vehicle only on the alleged presumption that the bovine animals were being carried for slaughter outside the State.
14. In view of the above statutory provisions and the precedents of this Court, it is evident that merely transporting bovine animals in a vehicle within the State does not constitute an offence under the Act of 1955. Accordingly, no offence is made out in this case. It is further apparent that the State?s action in confiscating the vehicle was illegal. In light of these facts, the orders of the District Magistrate and the Commissioner are liable to be quashed.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders of the District Magistrate dated 13.01.2025 and of the Commissioner dated 29.03.2025 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to hand over the vehicle to the petitioner, forthwith, within 3 days.
16. The petitioner is at liberty to claim damages from the State for the illegal action.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
April 16, 2026
Mayank
