Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4393 (ALL)

Manjoo Devi v. State Of U. P.

2026-01-07

Vivek Kumar Singh

body2026
JUDGMENT : VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ravindra Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present Application U/S 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as "B.N.S.S.") has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 10.10.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chandauli, in Criminal Revision No. 134 of 2025 (Manju Devi vs. State of U.P.), as well as the order dated 19.10.2024, passed by District Magistrate, Chandauli, in Case No. 393 of 2024 (Computerized Case No. D202414180000393), under Section 5(A) of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, arising out of Case Crime No. 34 of 2024, under Section 3/5A/5B/8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, P.S. Sakaldiha, District Chandauli. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of an information, Vehicle Tata Magic bearing Registration No. U.P. 67 BT 0122 of the applicant, was seized by the police personnel on 07.03.2024 and they found that it was carrying certain bovines. It is also suspected that the said vehicle was used in the illegal transportation of bovines. Thereafter an F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 34 of 2024, under Sections 3/5A/8/5B of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1955) and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1960"), was registered at P.S. Sakaldiha, District Chandauli, on 07.03.2024. The applicant was owner of the aforesaid vehicle. Thereafter an application was moved by the Investigating Officer on 09.03.2024 before the Superintendent of Police, District Chandauli, who put his report on 30.03.2024 with a prayer to confiscate the aforesaid vehicle. The proceedings under Section 5-A(7) under the Act, 1955, was initiated by the District Magistrate, Chandauli. The notice was also issued to the applicant who did not appear before the District Magistrate, Chandauli, and no objection was filed by her, therefore, the opportunity of hearing of the applicant was closed and the District Magistrate, Chandauli, proceeded ex-parte and confiscated the aforesaid Tata Magic Vehicle No. UP 67 BT 0122. 4. The notice was also issued to the applicant who did not appear before the District Magistrate, Chandauli, and no objection was filed by her, therefore, the opportunity of hearing of the applicant was closed and the District Magistrate, Chandauli, proceeded ex-parte and confiscated the aforesaid Tata Magic Vehicle No. UP 67 BT 0122. 4. Being aggrieved with the order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Chandauli, the applicant filed a Criminal Revision No. 134 of 2025 before the learned Sessions Judge, Chandauli, which was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chandauli, vide order dated 10.10.2025 for the reason that criminal revision was not maintainable, hence the present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been moved by the applicant with a prayer to set-aside the aforesaid orders dated 19.10.2024 and 10.10.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had purchased the aforesaid vehicle for delivery of vegetables in the market and driver as well as the cleaner of the said vehicle were not authorized to transport bovines. The applicant has nothing to do with the alleged offence. The applicant had no knowledge in respect of alleged commission of offence. The police has illegally made the applicant one of the accused in the F.I.R. and no one has claimed ownership of the vehicle and the applicant only is the registered owner of the vehicle and the said confiscated vehicle be released in her favour. 6. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that present Application U/S 528 B.N.S.S. is not maintainable. The applicant wrongly and illegally challenged the order of District Magistrate, Chandauli, before learned Sessions Judge, Chandauli. The learned Sessions Judge, Chandauli, has no jurisdiction to entertain criminal revision against the confiscation order of the District Magistrate, Chandauli. The remedy lies before the Divisional Commissioner against the confiscation order passed by the District Magistrate, Chandauli, in view of Government Notification dated 15.10.2024. 7. The learned A.G.A. has further submitted that the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, does not mention any remedy against confiscation order passed in the Act. Earlier a co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 9028 of 2021 ( Mustakeem Begum vs. State of U.P. and Three Others ) , held that the Act does not provide any forum of appeal or revision against the order of confiscation regarding seized vehicle passed by the District Magistrate. Earlier a co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 9028 of 2021 ( Mustakeem Begum vs. State of U.P. and Three Others ) , held that the Act does not provide any forum of appeal or revision against the order of confiscation regarding seized vehicle passed by the District Magistrate. Thereafter, it was held in the aforesaid case vide order dated 26.04.2024, that in such circumstances, provisions of criminal revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., shall be applicable and a criminal revision in the Court of Sessions Judge against such order would lie. Later on a Notification was issued by the Government of U.P. on 15.10.2024 and the criminal revision was filed by the applicant on 10.06.2025 challenging the order of the District Magistrate in the court of District Judge. It was laid down in the Government Notification dated 15.10.2024 that if the legality or the propriety of the action taken under Section 5-A of the Act, 1955, is to be challenged, the same could be challenged before the Divisional Commissioner. Since the revision was filed after Government Notification dated 15.10.2024, therefore, it was not maintainable before the learned Sessions Judge and the present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is also not maintainable. 8. The Division Bench of this Court while deciding the case of Mustakeem Begum (supra) , has made following observations in paragraph nos. 18, 19 and 20 of the writ petition. "18. Section 5-A of PCSA defines the provisions under the Act and provides procedures for seizure and confiscation of the vehicle and animals beef or cow progeny, seized under the Act. It does not provide any forum of appeal or revision against the order of confiscation regarding the seized vehicle passed by the District Magistrate. Therefore, the provisions of criminal revision u/s 397 Cr.P.C. shall be applicable. Section 397 Cr.P.C. provides for institution of criminal revision in the court of Sessions against the order passed by the District Magistrate and other Executive Magistrate supporting to the District magistrate. Thus, the petitioner has been provided suitable and appropriate forum u/s 397 Cr.P.C. to seek remedy against the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate. The provisions of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an extraordinary jurisdiction which can be exercised when the petitioner cannot obtain suitable relief from any other forum. Thus, the petitioner has been provided suitable and appropriate forum u/s 397 Cr.P.C. to seek remedy against the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate. The provisions of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an extraordinary jurisdiction which can be exercised when the petitioner cannot obtain suitable relief from any other forum. There is no extraordinary circumstance shown by the petitioner which may entitle him to obtain relief from this writ court. 19. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 20. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed." 9. Confronted with the above Notification dated 15.10.2024, learned counsels for the applicant prayed that the applicant may be permitted to file a criminal revision against the impugned order dated 19.10.2024 and it was also prayed that delay occurred in the above circumstances be also condoned. 10. The Act, 1955, is an Act to prevent the slaughter of cow and its progeny in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Section 5-A of the Act, 1955, is reproduced as hereunder : " 5-A. Regulation on transport of cow, etc. - (1) No person shall transport or offer for transport or cause to be transported any cow, or bull or bullock, the slaughter whereof in any place in Uttar Pradesh is punishable under this Act, from any place within the State to any place outside the State, except under a permit issued by an officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf by notified order and except in accordance with the terms and conditions of such permit. (2) Such officer shall issue the permit on payment of such fee not exceeding [five hundred rupees] for every cow, bull or bullock as may be prescribed : Provided that no fee shall be chargeable where the permit is for transport of the cow, bull or bullock for a limited period not exceeding six months as may be specified in the permit. (3) Where the person transporting a cow, bull or bullock on a permit for a limited period does not bring back such cow, bull or bullock into the State within the period specified in the permit, he shall be deemed to have contravened the provision of sub-section (1). (3) Where the person transporting a cow, bull or bullock on a permit for a limited period does not bring back such cow, bull or bullock into the State within the period specified in the permit, he shall be deemed to have contravened the provision of sub-section (1). (4) The form of permit, the form of application therefor and the procedure for disposal of such application shall be such as may be prescribed. (5) The State Government or any officer authorised by it in this behalf by general or special notified order, may, at any time, for the purpose of satisfying itself, or himself, as to the legality or propriety of the action taken under this section, call for and examine the record of any case and pass such orders thereon as it or he may deem fit]. (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. (9) The expenditure on the maintenance of the seized cows and its progeny shall be recovered from the accused for a period of one year or till the release of the cow and its progeny in favour of the owner thereof whichever is earlier. (9) The expenditure on the maintenance of the seized cows and its progeny shall be recovered from the accused for a period of one year or till the release of the cow and its progeny in favour of the owner thereof whichever is earlier. (10) Where a person is prosecuted for committing, abetting, or attempting to an offence under Sections 3, 5 and 8 of this Act and the beef or cow-remains in the possession of accused has been proved by the prosecution and transported things are confirmed to be beef by the competent authority or authorised laboratory, then the Court shall presume that such person has committed such offence or attempt or abetment of such offence, as the case may be, unless the contrary is proved. (11) Where the provisions of this Act or the related rules in context of search, acquisition, disposal and seizure are silent, the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be effective thereto." 11. Section 5-A of the Act, 1955, authorizes the law enforcement officers to seize any vehicle by which the beef or cow and its progeny is transported in violation of the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. The District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police is authorised to do all proceedings of confiscation and release, as the case maybe. 12. After hearing the counsel for the parties, it becomes apparent that U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 does not provide any forum of appeal or revision against the order of confiscation regarding the seized vehicle passed by the District Magistrate. It is trite law that if any judicial or quasi judicial order is passed against a party, then he must have a forum to vindicate his grievances. A party cannot be left in lurch in case any such order is passed against him. From the perusal of the order passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9028 of 2021, it is evident that the said order was passed on 26.4.2024 when no such forum was available for a party to challenge the confiscation order passed by the District Magistrate in U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. It appears that the said lacuna which occurred due to oversight of the legislature was rectified later on by issuing a notification dated 15.10.2024. 13. It appears that the said lacuna which occurred due to oversight of the legislature was rectified later on by issuing a notification dated 15.10.2024. 13. I have also perused the above notification which is reproduced herein below:- UTTAR PRADESH SHASAN Grih (Police) Anubhag-9 In pursuance of the provisions of clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution of India, the Governor is pleased to order the publication of the following English translation of Notification no. U.0./77/VI-P-9-2024 dated 15 October, 2024. NOTIFICATION No. U.O./77 U.O.-VI-P-9-2024 Lucknow: Dated 15 October, 2024 In exercise of the powers under sub-section (5) of section 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. 1955 (U.P. Act no. 1 of 1956) read with section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act no. 1 of 1904), the Governor is pleased to authorise the Divisional Commissioner to satisfy himself at any time as to the legality or propriety of the action taken under the section 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (U.P. Act no. I of 1956), call for and examine the record of any case and pass such order thereon as he may deem fit. The aforesaid power shall be exercised within the limit of the respective districts of the Divisional Commissioners. It is further Clarified that aforesaid authority Conferred to Division Commissioner may be know as Revisional Jurisdication. By Order, (Rajesh kumar) Secretary. Signed by Rajesh Kumar Date: 15-10-2024 14:44:39 14. In light of the aforesaid notification, it is very much clear that a criminal revision before Divisional Commissioner alone will lie against the confiscation order passed by the District Magistrate in U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. Hence, the criminal revision against the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, after the said Notification in the court of Sessions Judge, is not maintainable as the applicant has equal and efficacious remedy to ventilate his grievances before Divisional Commissioner concerned. However, this Court is of the view that the above Notification which was issued on 15.10.2024 would not have come to the notice of the applicant and she filed a criminal revision in view of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mustakeem Begum (supra) . However, this Court is of the view that the above Notification which was issued on 15.10.2024 would not have come to the notice of the applicant and she filed a criminal revision in view of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mustakeem Begum (supra) . But once the order was passed on 26.04.2024 in the case of Mustakeem Begum (supra) , the Government has issued Notification on 15.10.2024 and remedy has been provided. Therefore, criminal revision in the Court of District Judge would not lie against the confiscation order passed by the District Magistrate. The proper remedy is to file revision before Divisional Commissioner concerned 15. Therefore I find it appropriate to dispose of this application with a liberty to the applicant to approach the proper forum by filing a revision before Divisional Commissioner concerned within a month from the date of order and if applicant approaches the forum as directed by this Court, the concerned Divisional Commissioner will entertain her revision without going into the question of limitation. 16. If the revision is filed by the applicant before the Divisional Commissioner concerned challenging the order dated 19.10.2024 passed by District Magistrate, Chandauli, within a period prescribed here, the execution of order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Chandauli, shall not be given effect to, till final judgment of Revisional Court. 17. With the aforesaid observations, the present application is disposed of.