HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12174 of 2025 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State- respondent, and perused the record. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.08.2025 , passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Chandauli in Criminal Revision No. 78 of 2025 (Tauseef v. State of U.P.), whereby the order dated 27.07.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Chandauli in Case No. 1125 of 2023 (State v. Tauseef) was affirmed. By the said order, passed in connection with Case Crime No. 094 of 2022, under Sections 3/5A/5B/8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Police Station Chandauli, District Chandauli, the petitioner's vehicle was directed to be auctioned. 3. Briefly stated, the petitioner is the registered owner of Truck No. UP-21- N-5457. The said vehicle was detained by the police on 15.05.2022 at 04:30 a.m. during a routine inspection. Upon checking, 13 cow progeny were found being transported in the vehicle. Consequently, an FIR bearing Case Crime No. 094 of 2022 was registered under the aforementioned provisions of law. 4. During the course of the proceedings, the District Magistrate, Chandauli, vide order dated 27.07.2024, directed the auction of the said vehicle. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.08.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manoj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Tausif .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) erroneous and unsustainable in law, and therefore liable to be set aside. He further prays that the vehicle be released in favour of the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A., on instructions, submits that the vehicle in question has already been auctioned by the State Government in accordance with the law. It is further submitted that the petitioner was provided adequate opportunity to participate in the auction proceedings, but he failed to avail the same. The vehicle was ultimately sold for a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/-. 7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the material on record, it is evident that the vehicle was seized on 15.05.2022, yet the petitioner remained inactive for over two years. The auction proceedings were conducted on 27.07.2024, and the criminal revision challenging the order was filed only thereafter, with a delay of nearly one year. Although the revisional court condoned the delay, it found no ground to interfere with the order passed by the District Magistrate and rightly dismissed the revision on merits. 8. The conduct of the petitioner clearly indicates gross negligence in asserting his rights. Despite having knowledge of the seizure and the legal proceedings, he failed to take timely steps either to seek release of the vehicle or to participate in the auction. The record further demonstrates that the auction was conducted strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures, and no irregularity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. In light of the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the authorities below that would warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Accordingly, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed, with the liberty to avail his rights as per law. October 14, 2025 Anil K. Sharma A227 No. 12174 of 2025 2 (Vinod Diwakar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad