UP Cow Slaughter Act| There Is No Restriction On Transportation Of Beef From Outside State To Any Place Inside: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, there is no restriction on transportation of beef from any place outside the State to any place inside the State.
The Court held thus in a criminal revision filed against the order of the District Magistrate by which the motorcycle of a man was confiscated under Section 5A(7) of the aforesaid Act.
A Single Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed, “The restriction placed under Section 5A of the Cow Slaughter Act is only in respect of transportation of cow, bull or bullock that too only from a place outside the State to any place within the State. There is no bar or restriction of transport of beef even from any place outside the State to any place inside the State,In the present case the allegation being alleged transportation of beef on a vehicle (motorcycle) within two places in state,is nither prohibited nor even regulated thus, the foundation for confiscation on charge of transportation in violation of the provision of this Act is prima facie not established.”
The Bench said that the only power traceable for confiscation of a vehicle alleged to be transporting beef is traceable to Section 5A(7) which applies only when the beef or the cow is being transported in violation of the provisions of the Act.
Advocate Pradeep Kumar appeared on behalf of the revisionist.
In this case, an FIR was registered under Sections 8, 5, and 3 of the Cow Slaughter Act and it was alleged that four persons who were on two motorcycles were apprehended on being challenged. The said persons fled leaving behind the motorcycles and on the inspection of the motorcycle and the bags kept thereupon, one quintal 200 grams of beef was allegedly recovered from the bags. Subsequently, the ownership of the motorcycle was traced to the revisionist and based on this, the revisionist was charged of commission of an offence under Sections 3, 5A, and 8 of the said Act. The revisionist claiming to be the owner of the seized motorcycle, moved an application for release of the vehicle during the pendency of the case on which a report was called.
The Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur submitted his report stating that the revisionist was charge-sheeted as he was transporting the beef on the motorcycle and the same was liable to be confiscated. The District Magistrate empowered by virtue of section 5A(7), proceeded to pass an order of confiscation. As the revisionist could not produce any credible evidence to the contrary to the effect that the vehicle was not used for transportation as such, the same was confiscated. The counsel for the revisionist argued that the confiscation was contrary to the mandate of the Act and also violated the rights enshrined under Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel said, “On the plain reading of the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder, it is clear that the vehicle on which the beef is alleged to be transported can be confiscated only in terms of the mandate of Rule 7 of section 5A. … To attract the power of confiscation conferred by virtue of Rule 7 of Section 5A, it is essential to allege and establish that the vehicle on which beef is being transported is done in violation of the provisions of this Act and the relevant rules.”
The Court further noted that for transportation of cow, bull, or bullock, specific rules for issuance of permit are prescribed under Rule 16, however, the transportation of the cow, bull, or bullock, within the State of Uttar Pradesh does not require any permit as has also been held by the High Court in the case of Ashfaq Ahmad v. State of UP & Another 9 (1) ACR 233.
“Article 300-A of the Constitution of India prescribes that no one shall be deprived of his property except in accordance with law. The 'law',it is fairly well settled, should be a law framed by the Legislature. Thus, to deprive a person of his property (in the present case the motorcycle), it is essential that the Act framed by the Legislature prescribes for power of confiscation and subject to any limitations prescribed therein”, also said the Court.
Furthermore, the Court held that the restrictions on transportation in terms of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder is only applicable in respect of transportation of cow, bull, or bullock that too in any place in Uttar Pradesh from any place outside the State and that in the entire Act or the rules, there exists no provision barring transportation of beef.
“The reference to section 5A(11) with regard to the applicability of Cr.P.C. ,where the Act and the Rules are silent, applies only in respect of search, acquisition, disposal and seizure and not to the power of confiscation. Even otherwise, the power to confiscate vests in terms of the mandate of Cr.P.C. by virtue of Section 452 of the Cr.P.C. that too in respect of any property which is in the custody of the Criminal Court and that too after the enquiry or trial is concluded. In the present case admittedly, the trial is continuing the allegation on the revisionist is of transporting beef on the motorcycle within the State of Uttar Pradesh which is neither prohibited nor restrained even on a plain reading of section 5A(1) of the Cow Slaughter Act, as such, I have no hesitation in holding that the power of confiscation has been exercised without any authority of law and on a misreading of section 5A(7) of the Cow Slaughter Act and for the said reasons the confiscation order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed”, concluded the Court.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the revision and directed to release the vehicle of the revisionist.
Cause Title- Vaseem Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC:219818)
