HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1821 of 2024 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant revision has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 3.2.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Baghpat, arising out of Case Crime No.364 of 2023, under section 11(1)(d) of Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act and section 5(B) of the U.P. Cow Slaughter Act, P.S. Doghat, District Baghpat. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that the revisionist is owner of the vehicle bearing No. HR-45C-00547, which was found to be involved in commission of offence registered by the Police in Case Crime No.364 of 2023, under section 11(1)(d) of Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act and section 5(B) of the U.P. Cow Slaughter Act, P.S. Doghat, District Baghpat. The said vehicle was seized by the police with the allegation of transportation of the cows. Thereafter, the revisionist moved an application before the Magistrate for release of the vehicle, but vide order dated 3.2.2024, the Magistrate rejected the application of the revisionist. The vehicle is lying in the police custody since 21.12.2023 which is causing inconvenience to the business of the revisionist. He further contends that the vehicle was the only source of income of his family because of seizure of the said vehicle, entire family is facing hardship. 4. Learned District Magistrate has passed the impugned order without any basis and any evidence. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied on the law laid down by this Court in Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7938 of 2023, decided on 24.7.2023) and in Roopchandra Nishad Vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Revision No. 6781 of 2024, decided on 12.6.2025). 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that no material has been produced by the revisionist to substantiate aforesaid aspect of the matter. Learned AGA relying on judgment of this Court in Nitesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14242 of 2025) has submitted that a notification has been issued on 15.10.2024 by the State Government, and as per said Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Mohd. Shahibe Alam, Shabista Parveen Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mohammad Babloo .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) notification, the Divisional Commissioner is having only the jurisdiction. 6. From perusal of the record reflects that the date of incident is 20.12.2023 which is prior to issuance of said notification dated 15.10.2024, hence when the alleged occurrence took place, the said notification was even not in existence. 7. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that there is no oral or documentary evidence regarding the said presumption. The only material available before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was the first information report which discloses the confession of the revisionist. 8. Vehicle of the revisionist comes within the purview of property under the meaning of Section 300A of the Constitution of India and confiscating the vehicle without any reasonable basis amount to violation of the said right to property as provided by the aforesaid Article i.e. 300A Constitution of India. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion the impugned order dated 3.2.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Baghpat, cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside. 10. The revision succeeds and is allowed. 11. Let vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-45C-00547, be released in favour of the revisionist, if there is no other legal impediment. March 16, 2026 K.K. Maurya CRLR No. 1821 of 2024 2 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad