HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2746 of 2025 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri R.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 30.01.2025, in criminal revision no. 70/2024, passed by the learned court of Session Judge, Hathras and order 19.07.2021, in case no.-00440/2021, Computerized Case Number:-D202118340000440, (U.P. Government vs. Mustakim Begum), Under Section:- 5 (a) of U.P. Cow Slaughter Prevention Act 1955, passed by learned Court of District Magistrate, Mandal - Aligarh, District-Aligarh. A further prayer has also been made to issue direction to concerned authority to release the vehicle having TATA PIKUP no.- UP 86 T 5519 in favour of the petitioner forthwith. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that her vehicle was seized in Case Crime No. 279 of 2020, under Sections 279, 427 IPC, at Police Station Hasayan, District Hathras. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that her vehicle has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. The petitioner, being the registered owner of the vehicle, appeared before the Court of the District Magistrate, Mandal Aligarh, District Aligarh, where confiscation proceedings in case no.- 00440/2 (State vs. Mustakim Begum) were pending. He further submitted her objection stating that she is the registered owner of the vehicle and that the vehicle was duly insured and had a valid permit. Despite this, an order for confiscation and auction of the vehicle was passed by the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Puneet Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Mrs. Mustakeem Begum .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another .....Respondent(s) District Magistrate on 19.7.2021. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.7.2021, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.70 of 2024. The said criminal revision was also dismissed on 30.1.2025, upholding the findings recorded by the District Magistrate in the order dated 19.7.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the courts have committed gross illegality in denying the release of the petitioner's vehicle in his favour. 5. Learned AGA for the State has submitted that the petitioner's vehicle was seized while it was involved in the illegal transportation of govansh in violation of the provisions of the Cow Slaughter Act, and that the order of confiscation as well as the auction of the vehicle does not suffer from any infirmity. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. This Court will not enter into the merits of the facts upon which the FIR against the petitioner was registered under the provisions of the IPC as well as Cow Slaughter Act and the Animal Cruelty Act, as those involve disputed questions of fact. No substantial ground has been shown by the petitioner to establish that his vehicle was falsely implicated by the police authorities. However, this Court is of the view that confiscation of the vehicle should not result in deprivation of the owner's right to receive the said vehicle upon furnishing adequate security. 8. This Court further finds that both courts have failed to consider the settled legal position that the owner must be afforded an opportunity to redeem the vehicle on deposit of its value or furnishing of adequate security as may be determined by the competent authority such as the RTO. In the present case, it is evident that no such opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. The impugned order reflects non-application of mind and failure to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law. 9. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served in setting aside the impugned orders at this stage, inasmuch as the ends of justice would be adequately met by permitting A227 No. 2746 of 2025 2 the petitioner to approach before District Magistrate, Mandal Aligarh, District Aligarh by submitting appropriate application seeking release/redemption of the vehicle. Accordingly, without setting aside the impugned orders, it is provided that in case the petitioner files an appropriate application before the concerned District Magistrate within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with observations made hereinabove. 10. The concerned District Magistrate shall, while deciding such application, specifically consider the claim of the petitioner for release of the vehicle on deposit of its value, as may be determined by the RTO. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of filing of such application. It is further provided that till the aforesaid period, or till the decision of the application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken in respect of the vehicle in question. 11. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. May 6, 2026 KJ A227 No. 2746 of 2025 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- KAMARJAHAN ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad