Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

While allowing a revision plea against confiscation of a motorbike allegedly carrying beef, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that "there is no bar or restriction of transport of beef even from any place outside the State to any place inside the State".

The restriction placed under Section 5A of the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 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, the single judge bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia said. 

"In the entire Act or the rules, there exists no provision barring transportation of beef," the bench clarified. 

An FIR was registered under Section 8/5/3 of the Cow Slaughter Act where it was alleged that four persons who were on two motorcycles were apprehended. On the inspection of the motorcycle and the bags kept on it, one quintal & 200 grams of beef was allegedly recovered. Upon being questioned the persons on the motorbike fled leaving behind the motorcycles.

Subsequently, the ownership of the motorcycle was traced to the revisionist and based upon the said, the revisionist was charged of commission of an offence under Section 3/5A/8 of the Cow Slaughter 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 of the area, submitted his report stating that the revisionist was chargesheeted for commission of an offence under Section 3/5A/8 of the Cow Slaughter Act and as he was transporting the beef on the motorcycle in question, the motorcycle in question was made a case property and is liable to be confiscated.

The District Magistrate empowered by virtue of section 5A(7), proceeded to pass an order of confiscation (impugned ).

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 as the confiscation was not a proper exercise of power, and the order deserved to be quashed.

On the other hand, the Additional Government Advocate, justified the order by arguing that in terms of the report, the vehicle in question was used for transportation of beef as was clear from the perusal of the FIR which itself recorded that the beef was being transported from Ajua to be sold at Afoi (both within the State of Uttar Pradesh), and as such the power of confiscation was rightly exercised by the District Magistrate, who was duly empowered to do so.

However, the high court referred to Section 5A(1) of the Act which provides that no person shall transport or offer for transporting or cause to be transported any cow or bull or Bullock, the slaughter whereof is punishable under the Act from any place within the State to any place outside the State except on a permit issued by the State Government.

Court further pointed out that Section 5A(7) of the Act states that the vehicle by which the beef or cow and its progeny is transported in violation of the provisions of the Act and the relevant rules shall be confiscated and seized by the law enforcement officers and the District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police is empowered to take proceedings of confiscation and release in respect of the said seized vehicle.

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, court underscored. 

In view of the same, court held 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.

Accordingly, court concluded that in the present matter, the power of confiscation had 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 could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed.

Case Title: Vaseem Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another