Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36847 Court No. - 27 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5907 of 2025 Petitioner :- Subhash Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhil Kumar Singh,Gyanendra Pratap Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred with the following main prayer:- " Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:- (i) A Writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to Quash the impugned order dated 08/07/2022 passed by the learned District magistrate Sultanpur in case no 1882/2022 computerized case no D202204680001882 Sate vs Vinay Yadav by which (Truck) vehicle bearing registration no UP61AT2043 of the petitioner has been confiscated/seized in exercise of power under section 5A(7) of UP prevention of cow slaughter act 1955 to pursuant to First Information Report vide case crime no 0063/2022 u/s 3/5A/8 Of UP Cow Slaughter Act and sec 11 or prevention of cruelty to animals act police station Kurebhar District Sultanpur, contained as Annexure no 1 to this petition. (ii)A Writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to Quash the impugned the order dated 09/06/2025 passed by the Commissioner Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya in appeal no 1143/2025 computerized case no C202504000001143, Subhash Pal vs state of Up through District Magistrate by which appeal is filed by petitioner rejected. (iii) A Writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties /concerned authorities to release confiscated/seized vehicle bearing registration no UP 61 AT2043 in favour of the petitioner." 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A for the State, the petition is being decided at the admission stage. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.04.2022, the vehicle no. U.P 61 AT 2043 was seized which was carrying 48 cow progeny along with instruments for cutting them. The vehicle of the petitioner was confiscated and a case was registered under Section 3/5A/8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as Act, 1955). 4. In the said matter, for release of the vehicle, an application was moved by the petitioner before the District Magistrate which was rejected vide impugned order dated 08.07.2022. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the commissioner, which was also rejected by impugned order dated 09.06.2025. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Section 5A of the Act, 1955 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner for the reason that Section 5A of the Act is applicable where the cow or its progeny is being transported from one state to another state and that is not the case against the petitioner or the vehicle which was seized by the authorities. 6. It is further submitted that the said controversy has already been decided by this Court by its judgment and order dated 06.10.2023 in the case of Kaliya versus State of U.P in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6826 of 2023. The relevant extract of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- " 9.A perusal of section 5-A(1) of the Act shows that the said provision shall come into place when the cow or its progeny is transported from within the State of U.P. to any other place outside the State and in that case, permit issued by the authorised officer of the State government shall be required. There is nothing on record to show that the alleged recovered animals, i.e. the cows were being transported from within the State of U.P. to any other State. Therefore, from the plain reading of section 5-A of the Act, the permit is not required in the peculiar facts of this case. 10. The question involved in the case in hand has also come up for consideration before this court in Kailash Yadav and others versus State of U.P. and others 2008(10) ADJ 623 wherein it has been held that no permit is required for transportation of cow or its progeny within the State of U.P.. Section 5-A(6 to 8) provides for confiscation and release of vehicle by which beef or cow and its progeny is transported in violation of the provisions of the Act and relevant rules. 11.From perusal of sub sections (1 to 5) of section 5-A of the Act and the law laid down by this court in Kailash Yadav's case (supra), it is evident that there is no need of permit to transport cow(s) and its progeny within the State of U.P.. Hence, such transportation of cow and its progeny cannot be said to be in violation of the Act. Consequently, it can also not be said that the seized vehicle has been used in violation of Section 5-A or any other provision of the Act. Therefore, the police has no power or jurisdiction to seize or confiscate the vehicle in question and the District Magistrate also could not have issued notice under section 5-A of the Act when there is nothing to substantiate that the animals were being transported from within the State to some other State. In other words, in case the animals were being transported within the State of U.P., no show cause notice under section 5-A of the Act could have been given. 12.A coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 25.8.2022 passed in Mohd. Shakib versus State of U.P. Application under section 482 CrPC No.23143 of 2021 has held that no permit is required to transport cow and its progeny within the State of U.P. and therefore, it cannot be said that the seized vehicle in question was used in violation of section 5A(1) to (11) or any provisions of the Cow Slaughter Act. Relevant paras 12 and 13 of the judgment in Mohd. Shakib's case (supra) is reproduced as below : "12. Now, it is to be considered whether permit is required for transportation of the cow or its progeny within the State of Uttar Pradesh. This question came up for consideration before this Court in Criminal Revision No. 131 of 2005 (Kailash Yadav and Others vs. State of U.P. & others, 2008(10) ADJ 623), wherein it is held that no permit is required for transportation of cow or its progeny within the State of Uttar Pradesh. Sub-section 5A (6 to 8) provides for confiscation and release of vehicle by which beef or cow and its progeny is transported in violation of the provision of this Act and the relevant rules. Sub- section 5A (6 to 8) reads as follows:- (6) Where the said conveyance has been confirmed to be related to beef by the competent authority or authorised laboratory under this Act, the driver, operator and owner related to transport, shall be charged with the offence under this Act, unless it is not proved that the transport medium used in crime, despite all its precautions and without its knowledge, has been used by some other person for causing the offence. (7) The vehicle by which the beef or cow and its progeny is transported in violation of the provisions of this Act and the relevant rules, shall be confiscated and seized by the law enforcement officers. The concerned District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police will do all proceedings of confiscation and release, as the case may be. (8) The cow and its progeny or the beef transported by the seized vehicle shall also be confiscated and seized by the law enforcement officers. The concerned District Magistrate/Commissioner will do all proceedings of the confiscation and release, as the case may be. 13. From the perusal of sub-section (1 to 5) of Section 5A of this Act and the law laid down by this Court in Kailash Yadav and Others vs. State of U.P. & Others (supra), it is abundantly clear that there is no need of permit to transport cow and its progeny within the state of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, transportation of a cow and its progeny within the state of Uttar Pradesh is not a violation of any of the provisions of the Cow Slaughter Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the seized vehicle in question was used in violation of Section 5A (1) to (11) or any provisions of the Cow Slaughter Act, and therefore, police has no power or jurisdiction to seize or confiscate the vehicle in question. The District Magistrate, Varanasi has passed the impugned confiscation order dated 18.08.2021 in contravention of the law, as no permit is required to transport cow and its progeny within the state of Uttar Pradesh. In above circumstances, the impugned order dated 18.08.2021 passed by District Magistrate, Varanasi is without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set-aside. Likewise, the revisional court has not considered the relevant provisions of Section 5A of Cow Slaughter Act while dismissing the criminal revision of the applicant, therefore, the impugned order dated 13.10.2021 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Chandauli is also against the provisions of law and is liable to be set-aside. " Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Mudaliar versus State of Gujarat [AIR 2003 SC 638] has deprecated the practice of police authorities by keeping the seized vehicles at the police station and has set out time limit for release of such vehicles within a maximum period of one month. It is said that the articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case for not more than fifteen days to one month. 13.In the case in hand, it is evident that the cow and its progeny were not being transported from within the State to outside State, therefore, the provisions of section 5-A of the Act are not attracted. Consequently, the show cause notice dated 13.12.2022 (supra) issued by the District Magistrate, confiscation order dated 14.3.2023 (supra) and the appellate order dated 15.6.2023 (supra) are bad in law, and liable to be and are set aside. The opposite parties are directed to release the vehicle forthwith in accordance with law on such terms which are deemed appropriate. 14.The petition is allowed in above terms. " 7. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the above judgment of this Court. 8. Learned A.G.A is unable to dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the applicability of the judgment relied by him. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case and the judgment of this Court, there is nothing on record which could show that the vehicle was involved in carrying the cow and its progeny for transporting them from one state to another state, hence Section 5A of the act is not applicable, therefore, the issue is squarely covered by the judgment dated 06.10.2023, passed in the case of Kaliya (supra). 10. Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby allowed. 11. The impugned orders dated 08.07.2022 and 09.06.2025 are hereby quashed and the opposite parties are directed to release the vehicle forthwith, in accordance with law on such terms and conditions which are deemed proper to the authorities. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 DiVYa Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench