HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5041 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. 3. The instant criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 07.08.2024 passed by District Magistrate, Chandauli in Case No. 389 of 2024 (Computerized No. D202414180000389) (State Versus Pyari Devi and another), under section 5(ka) of U.P. Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Naugarh, District Chandauli. 4. Vide impugned order, learned District Magistrate has passed an order confiscating the vehicle i.e. Pick-up bearing Registration No. BR-45 GA-9178, under section 5(A)(7) of the aforesaid Act. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that no offence under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act is made out against the revisionist. The revisionist is the owner of vehicle No. BR-45 GA-9178. The vehicle runs on diesel. It is submitted that the petitioner was earning his livelihood by running the said vehicle and has no other means of survival; hence, the vehicle in question is his sole means of earning. 6. 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). 7. 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) : Kamlesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pyari Devi .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) notification, the Divisional Commissioner is having only the jurisdiction. 8. From perusal of the record reflects that the date of incident is 02.12.2023 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. 9. 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 District Magistrate was the first information report which discloses the confession of the revisionist. 10. 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. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion the impugned order of the learned District Magistrate, Ballia dated 07.08.2024, cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside. 12. The revision succeeds and is allowed. 13. Let vehicle bearing Registration No. BR-45 GA-9178, be released in favour of the revisionist, if there is no other legal impediment. February 18, 2026 K.K. Maurya CRLR No. 5041 of 2025 2 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad