Read Time: 13 minutes

 

"The Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (PCSA) is a special act and local law, therefore, the powers under Sections 451, 452 & 457 of CrPC (relating to custody & disposal of property) being general provisions, cannot be invoked in respect of proceedings under the PCSA," observed Allahabad High Court recently.

In the present case, one Yash Mohammad’s vehicle which was carrying the animals was seized under Section 5-A of the PCSA. Thereafter, an FIR dated 21.9.2020 under sections 3/5-A/8 of the PCSA and Section 11 of the PCAA was registered against the applicant and the proceedings for the same had begun. The vehicle owner (applicant) thereafter, filed an application for the release of vehicle and the lower courts after taking into consideration the scheme of the PCSA, rejected the application.

As a result the applicant moved the High Court and pleaded to set aside the lower court's order.

However, the single judge bench of Justice Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, while dismissing the application for release of the vehicle during the pendency of proceedings under the PCSA, noted that the orders by the court below cannot be said to suffer from illegality so as to warrant interference.

The bench further noted that, “Section 5 of the Code contains a saving clause and as per terms thereof nothing contained in the Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force.”

The counsel for the applicant had sought to assail the orders passed by the revisional court and the Magistrate. He contended that, “since the vehicle of the applicant had been confiscated, the courts below have committed an error in rejecting the application for release, ignoring the powers exercisable under section 451 and 457 of the Code. He submits that the property in question i.e. the vehicle which is lying with the authorities is liable to be released.”

“The PCSA is a “local law” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Code and in view thereof, the general provisions contained under Sections 451 of the Code with regard to custody and disposal of the property pending trial or the power for making an order for disposal of property at the conclusion of trial under Section 452 or the procedure under Section 457 would therefore, be subject to the powers exercisable under Section 5-A of the PCSA which makes a special provision with regard to confiscation and seizure of the vehicle used for transport in contravention of the provisions of the Act,” asserted Bench.

The counsel urged the Bench to place reliance on the judgement in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat.

The Additional Government Advocate-I has opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted that, “the proceedings have been initiated under the PCSA, which is a Special Act, and provides a separate procedure with regard to confiscation and seizure under Section 5-A thereof, and in view of the provisions contained under Section 5 of the Code, the powers under Sections 451 to 457 relating to disposal of property would not be applicable.”

Accordingly, he submitted that the orders passed by the Magistrate and the revisional court cannot be said to be faulted with.

Taking into account the factual matrix of the present case and keeping in mind Sections 5 ( Saving Clause), 451(Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases), 452 (Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial) and 457 (Procedure by police upon seizure of property) of the Code and provision of PSCA that is Section 5-A (Regulation on transport of cow, etc.),  the bench made the following observations –

1. Sub-section (1) of Section 5- A PSCA contains a clear prohibition on transportation of any cow or bull or bullock, the slaughter whereof in any place in Uttar Pradesh is punishable under the Act, from any place within the State to any place outside the State, except under a permit to be issued by an officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf by notified order and except in accordance with the terms and conditions of such permit.
2. Sub-section (4) of Sec 5- A of PSCA, mandates that the form of permit, the form of application therefor and the procedure for disposal of such application shall be such as may be prescribed.
3. As per terms of sub-section (7) of Section 5-A, the vehicle by which the beef or cow and its progeny are being transported in violation of the Act and the relevant rules is to be confiscated and seized by the law enforcement officers and concerned District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police are to undertake proceedings of confiscation and release, as the case may be.
4. The necessary provisions with regard to confiscation, seizure and release of vehicle used for transportation in violation of the provisions of 8 PCSA and the Rules made therein, having being provided for, and the Act and the Rules not being silent in regard thereto as per the stipulation under sub-section (11) of Section 5-A, the provisions of the Code would not be invocable in matters relating to confiscation, seizure and release under the PCSA.
5. The judgment in the case Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), which is an authority relating to release of vehicles seized in connection with criminal proceedings under general law would not be applicable under the facts of the present case which relate to proceedings under a special Act, particularly in view of the provisions under Section 5 of the Code.
6. The vehicle in question having been confiscated and seized in exercise of powers under Section 5-A of the PCSA, which is in the nature of a special Act and a local law under Section 5 of the Code, the same would clearly have the effect of denuding the Magistrate of his power to pass any order under Sections 451, 452 and 457 of the Code for release of the vehicle seized for alleged violation of the provisions of the Act.

[Case title – Yas Mohammad vs. State of U.P. And Another]

[Law Points – Sections 451, 452 and 457 of the Code and section 5-A of PSCA]

Edited by Shreya Agarwal