Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130161 Court No. - 85 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6375 of 2025 Petitioner :- Chandrabhan Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hira Lal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ratan Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 16.06.2025 passed by Sessions Judge, Chandauli in Criminal Revision No. 49 of 2025 (Chandrabhan Kumar v. State of U.P. and another) and order dated 22.03.2025 passed by the learned District Magistrate, Chandauli in Case No. 1253 of 2024 Computerized Case No. D202414180001253, (State Vs. Moti Patel and others) under Section 5A U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Police Station Sayyad Raja, District Varanasi. 3. The facts in brief giving rise to the present petition is that, on 08.09.2024, a police personnel lodged an FIR at Police Station Sayyad Raja, District Varanasi as Case Crime No. 162 of 2024 under Section 3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of the Prevention of the Animal Cruelty Act, 1960 against the petitioner and other accused persons and the vehicle of the petitioner was seized alleging that the petitioner were transporting cow and its progeny for slaughtering. Thereafter, summons were issued to the petitioner and petition has submitted his reply on 05.02.2025 stating that his vehicle be released. 4. However, the District Magistrate, Chandauli vide order dated 22.03.2025, rejected the release application of the petitioner. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Chandauli which was also rejected vide order dated 16.06.2025. 6. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being the owner of vehicle No. UP65-JT-0125 is being harassed with ulterior motive and has been falsely implicated. It has been pleaded that the petitioner possesses the certificate of registration as well as permit in respect to the goods. The petitioner has no other source of income except the income derived from the said vehicle. It has also been pleaded that the alleged offence was stated to have committed in UP and not outside U.P., therefore, no offence under Section 5A of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act has been committed. 7. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the proceedings under Section 5A of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act has been rightly initiated as the alleged vehicle was used in transportation of the cow and its progeny (bovines) for their slaughtering and were recovered from the alleged vehicle of the petitioner and thereafter, the FIR was registered and accordingly, the vehicle was seized. 8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has further raised an objection that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner should have availed the appropriate remedy as per the Notification No. U.O./77 U.O-VI-P-9-2024 dated 15.10.2024 issued by the Government of U.P. before the Divisional Commissioner as against the order of confiscation passed by District Magistrate initiated under Section 5A of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, the revision lies before the Divisional Commissioner. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty that petitioner may be permitted to file criminal revision against the impugned order before the Divisional Commissioner after the condonation of delay. 10. Hence, in pursuance to the aforesaid notification, the petitioner may avail an appropriate alternative remedy to redress his grievances. 11. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the observations that the petitioner may file a criminal revision before Divisional Commissioner within a period of four weeks from today, which shall be heard and decided expeditiously, by giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties preferably within a period of six weeks after condoning the delay, if there is no other legal impediment. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Aditya Tripathi Digitally signed by :- ADITYA TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad