# Chandrabhan Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 991
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-30
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 28877 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandrabhan-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54433
- **Pages:** 12

## Text

4 All. Chandrabhan Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
991
 5. This Court deprecated such practice on the part of the Government Officials and struck down
such notice in view of the settled legal position, the impugned notice cannot be said to be in accordance with
law, it is accordingly quashed."

14. Section 2(b) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 defines a "Goonda" as a person who
habitually commits, attempts to commit, or abets the commission of offences punishable under various
provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including offences affecting the human body such as causing hurt or
injury, use of criminal force, kidnapping, sexual offences, as well as offences against property, including
criminal trespass, mischief, and cheating, etc.

15. It is apparent from the statutory scheme that conviction is specifically required only in respect of
certain offences under special enactments such as the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls
Act, the U.P. Excise Act, the Public Gambling Act, and the Arms Act. However, in respect of offences under
the IPC, the Act does not mandate prior conviction as a prerequisite for initiating proceedings.

16. It is further evident that the Act does not prescribe any fixed number of offences required to
classify a person as a "Goonda," nor does it stipulate a specific time gap between offences for determining
habituality. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Narain Singh (supra), has held that for invoking
the provisions of such preventive legislation, the person must be shown to be a habitual offender, and if
offences are committed with a long time gap, the element of habituality may not be established.

17. It is apparent that this Court has consistently held that merely on the basis of one or two criminal
cases, a person cannot be branded as a "Goonda". Such punitive action of the State causes irreparable damage
to the reputation of such person and his family.

18. Since in the instant case also, the petitioner has been branded as "Goonda" on the basis
of only two criminal cases registered against him, hence, the proceedings initiated under the Act of
1970 are unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order
dated 12.02.2025 and 02.06.2025 are quashed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 991
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 28877 of 2025

Chandrabhan Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
992 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle u/s 5-A of U.P. Prevention of Cow
Slaughter Act, 1955, on the allegation of transporting bovine animals for slaughter without permit, was legally
sustainable when there was no material showing that the animals were being transported outside the State of
Uttar Pradesh and no beef or slaughtered animal remains were recovered from the vehicle.

Headnotes
U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 - ss. 3 , 5, 5-A(8), 5-B - Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act, 1960 - s. 11 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Confiscation of vehicle -
Requirement of permit - Transportation of bovine animals within State - Presumption of
intended slaughter - Legality of confiscation - Challenged before District Magistrate, dismissed -
Appeal before Commissioner, dismissed - Impugned orders - Compensation granted -
Restoration of vehicle - The petitioner's vehicle was intercepted by police at Police Station
Saiyadraja, District Chandauli, on the basis of information regarding transportation of bovine
animals for slaughter to Bihar - Ten bovine animals were allegedly recovered from the vehicle,
leading to registration of an FIR under U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Subsequently, proceedings for confiscation of
vehicle were initiated u/s 5-A of Act, 1955, and the District Magistrate, Chandauli confiscated
the vehicle, which order was affirmed by Commissioner, Varanasi Division - The petitioner
challenged the orders before the High Court contending that there was no evidence of
transportation outside the State or for slaughter and that the confiscation was based only on
presumption - While, the State argued that petitioner failed to establish that the confiscated
animals were not being transported to Bihar for slaughter - It is submitted further that the
surrounding circumstances gave rise to a strong presumption against the petitioner and the
confiscation and auction of vehicle were in accordance with law.

Held: Admittedly, no beef or slaughtered animal flesh was recovered from the vehicle - The sole basis of
confiscation appears that the animals were allegedly being transported without permit - However, there is no
cogent material on record to establish that the animals were in fact being transported to State of Bihar for
slaughter - Mere interception of vehicle near the Bihar border cannot ipso facto justify such presumption.
Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute legal proof - The entire action of State in confiscating the
petitioner's vehicle was arbitrary, illegal and unsupported by statutory provisions of Act of 1955 - It is equally
disturbing that during pendency of proceedings before the Commissioner, the State proceeded to auction the
vehicle without awaiting adjudication of petitioner's challenge - Such arbitrary action has caused grave
prejudice to petitioner - The material on record further indicates that the vehicle was a commercial transport
vehicle and the principal source of livelihood of petitioner - It also appears that the vehicle had been financed
through Shriram Finance Ltd. and the petitioner was paying monthly loan instalments of Rs.9,843/- until
August, 2024, but defaulted thereafter owing to seizure of vehicle - In the circumstances, the Court deems it
just and proper to award compensation to petitioner - Accordingly, the State is directed to pay compensation
@ Rs.15,000/- per month for a period of about twelve months from 08.09.2024 to 14.09.2025, totalling
Rs.1,80,000/-, together with an additional sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and harassment -
Accordingly, writ petition allowed. [Paras 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 29] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Kaliya v. State of UP And Others 2023 SCC OnLine All 1974; Munib v. State of UP and 2 others 2024 SCC
OnLine All 9631; Nilabati Behera (Smt.) Alias Lalita Behera(Through The Supreme Court Legal Aid
Committee) v. State of Orissa and Others (1993) 2 SCC 746; Indibily Creative Private Ltd. And Others v.
Government of West Bengal And Others (2020) 12 SCC 436 - referred to

List of Acts
U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955; Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960; Constitution of India,
1950.
4 All. Chandrabhan Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
993
List of Keywords
Art. 226 of Constitution of India; Writ Petition; Commissioner (Appeal); District Magistrate; U.P. Prevention of
Cow Slaughter Act, 1955; Vehicle confiscated; Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960; During search ten
bovine animals were recovered from vehicle of petitioner; Vehicle was seized; FIR registered; Transportation
of animals for slaughter; Arbitrary; Illegal; Unsustainable in law; Presumption of intended slaughter; Auction
of vehicle; Economic Loss; Livelihood of petitioner; Compensation to petitioner; Restoration of vehicle; Grave
prejudice to petitioner; Damages; Mental agony; Harassment; Impugned orders quashed; Writ petition
allowed.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 28877 of 2025

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2025 passed by District Magistrate, Chandauli in Case No. 1253 of
2024 and also Order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi in Case No.
3546 of 2025.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Petitioner(s):
Hira Lal

Adv. for the Respondent(s):
G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. The instant writ petition has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
assailing the impugned order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division,
Varanasi in Case No.3546 of 2025, Computerized Case No.C202514000003546 (Chandrabhan
Kumar vs. State of U.P.), under Section 5-A(8) of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955,
whereby the order dated 22.03.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Chandauli in Case No.1253
of 2024, Computerized Case No.D202414180001253 (State vs. Moti Patel and others), under
Section 5-A of the Act, 1955, was affirmed. By the said order, vehicle no. UP65-JT-0125
belonging to the petitioner was confiscated on the allegation that it was carrying ten bovine animals
for slaughter to the State of Bihar without a permit, which was mandatory under the Act of 1955.

2. The factual matrix, as emerging from the record, is that on 08.09.2024 at about 14:00
hours, the police personnel of Police Station Saiyadraja, District Chandauli, acting upon
information supplied by an informer, that certain vehicles were transporting cows and their progeny
for slaughter to the State of Bihar, intercepted vehicle no. UP65-JT-0125 belonging to the
petitioner. Upon search, ten bovine animals, namely six heifers, two cows, one bull and one
bullock, were allegedly recovered therefrom. Consequently, the vehicle was seized and FIR being
Case Crime No.162 of 2024, under Sections 3/5-A/8 and 5 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter
Act, 1955, as well as Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, was registered
at Police Station Saiyadraja, District Chandauli against Moti Patel, Anup, Chandrabhan Kumar
(owner of the vehicle), and one unknown person.

3. Since, according to the prosecution, the aforesaid bovine animals were being transported
in contravention of the provisions of the Act of 1955, proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle
994 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were initiated by issuance of notice under Section 5-A(7) of the Act, 1955 by the District
Magistrate, Chandauli. The petitioner submitted his reply asserting that the vehicle had been
forcibly seized and that no animals were being transported therein.

4. The District Magistrate, however, was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the
petitioner and recorded a finding that under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed
thereunder, a permit was required for transporting the animals to the State of Bihar and further, the
animals were being transported for slaughter. Since the vehicle had been intercepted near the Bihar
border, a presumption was drawn that the vehicle was proceeding towards Bihar and the animals
were intended for slaughter. Consequently, in exercise of powers under Section 5-A(7) of the Act,
1955, the vehicle of the petitioner was confiscated.

5. The petitioner preferred an appeal/revision before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division,
Varanasi under Section 5-A(8) of the Act, 1955, which too came to be dismissed by the impugned
order dated 27.11.2025. The Commissioner concurred with the view that a permit was necessary
for transportation of the aforesaid animals.

6. It is pertinent to note that the order dated 22.03.2025 passed by the District Magistrate
was initially challenged by the petitioner by means of Criminal Revision No.49 of 2025
(Chandrabhan Kumar vs. State of U.P. and another), which was dismissed by the District Judge,
Chandauli vide order dated 16.06.2025 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, holding that the
competent authority under Section 5-A of the Act, 1955 was the Commissioner.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Petition under Article 227
No.6375 of 2025 (Chandrabhan Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), which was disposed of by a
Coordinate Bench vide order dated 04.08.2025 granting liberty to the petitioner to file Criminal
Revision before the Divisional Commissioner within four weeks. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner
filed Criminal Revision under Section 5-A(8) of the Act, 1955, which was dismissed by the
impugned order dated 27.11.2025.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the State in confiscating the
petitioner?s vehicle is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law. It is contended that the
vehicle was apprehended within the State of Uttar Pradesh and no beef or slaughtered animal
remains were recovered therefrom. It is further submitted that there was no material whatsoever to
infer that the bovine animals were being transported to Bihar for slaughter and the confiscation
order is founded merely upon conjectures and presumptions.

9. It is next submitted that the proceedings before the Commissioner were instituted on
29.08.2025 and an application for interim protection against operation of the order dated
22.03.2025 was also moved, yet no order was passed thereon. During pendency of the said
proceedings, the State authorities proceeded to auction the vehicle for a paltry sum of Rs.85,000/-,
despite the market value of the vehicle being more than Rs.7 lakhs. It is argued that the State acted
in undue haste and in gross disregard of fairness, as it ought to have awaited the final outcome of
the proceedings pending before the Commissioner.
4 All. Chandrabhan Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
995
10. It is further submitted that the petitioner has suffered grave economic loss, inasmuch as
the vehicle constituted his sole source of livelihood and sustenance. Accordingly, it is prayed that
the impugned orders be quashed and suitable compensation be awarded.

11. Per contra, Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri
Pankaj Saxena and Ms. Seema Shukla, learned A.G.A., has sought to support the impugned orders
contending that the petitioner failed to establish that the animals were not being transported to
Bihar for slaughter. It is submitted that the surrounding circumstances gave rise to a strong
presumption against the petitioner and that the confiscation and auction of the vehicle were in
accordance with law. It is thus urged that no interference is warranted in exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the
documents submitted with the petition.

13. Section 5-A and 5-B of the Act,1955, which are relevant, reads as under:-

 "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).

 (4) The form of permit, the form of application therefore 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, called for and examine the record of any
case and pass such orders thereon as it or he may deemed fit.

 (6) Where the said conveyance has been confirmed to be related to beef by the competent
authority or authorized 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
996 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

 (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 authorized 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.

 5-B. Whoever causes any physical injury to any cow or its progeny so as to endanger the
life thereof such as to mutilate its body or to transport it in any situation whereby endangering the
life thereof or with the intention of endangering the life thereof does not provide with food or water
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year and which
may extend to seven years and with fine which shall not be less than one Lakh rupees and which
may extend to three Lakh rupees."

14. This Court in the case of Kaliya vs. State of UP And Others 2023 SCC OnLine All
1974, held as under:-

 "10. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and going through
the record as well as provisions of the Act, I find that the moot question involved in this case is
whether the present petitioner has violated any provision of law in transportation of cows and its
progeny by the aforesaid vehicle and whether the impugned orders have been passed confiscating
the said vehicle in accordance with law.

 11. ***
4 All. Chandrabhan Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
997
 12. 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.

 13. 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.

 14. The question involved in the case in hand has also come up for consideration before
this court in Kailash Yadav v. State of U.P. 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.

 15. 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.

 16. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 25.8.2022 passed in
Mohd. Shakib v. 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 v. State of U.P., 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
998 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 v. State of U.P. (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 setaside. 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."

 (emphasis supplied)

15. This Court again in the case of Munib vs. State of UP and 2 others 2024 SCC OnLine
All 9631 held as under:-

 "12. Thus transportation of cow etc. is regulated by Section 5A and Section 5A(7) confers
power upon the District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police to confiscate 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. A perusal of the F.I.R. indicates that none of the cow were maimed nor physically injured.
Further, the allegation that they were being transported to West Bengal from Prayagraj for
slaughtering requires no consideration as the condition precedent for the application of the
section is that the cattle described in the Act should have been transported from any place in the
State of U.P. to any place outside the State. Even if the story of seizure of cattle is believed then
also 06 cattle are said to have been seized within the jurisdiction of Police Station Lalganj
District Mirzapur namely within the State of Uttar Pradesh and admittedly, the border is far
4 All. Chandrabhan Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
999
away. The fact remains that cattle were apprehended from within the State of U.P. and,
therefore, it cannot be said that they were transported to a place outside the State of U.P.

 13. ..Commission of offence is one of the requisite ingredients for passing an order of
confiscation and an order of confiscation should not be passed automatically. Thus, there is no
material, as exist on record, to justify the exercise of powers under Sub Section 7 of Section 5A.
The same is clearly contrary to the mandates and powers conferred upon the District Magistrate.

 14. The confiscation by its very connotation implies depriving a person of his property to
which he is entitled to retain. Article 300A of the Constitution of India provides that no person
shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. Arbitrary confiscation of the property
which he might be using for his trade, profession or occupation is a serious encroachment on the
fundamental right of a citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India to carry on his
trade, occupation or business. The procedure prescribed by law for confiscating the property as
contained
in
Section
5A(7)
of
the
Cow
Slaughter
Act,
empowers
the
District
Magistrate/Commissioner of Police to confiscate/seize the vehicle only if the conditions so
prescribed under Sub Section 7 of Section 5A are fulfilled."

(emphasis supplied)

16. The Apex Court in the case of Nilabati Behera (Smt.) Alias Lalita Behera(Through
The Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) vs. State of Orissa and Others (1993) 2 SCC 746, held
as under:-

 "34. The public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law
proceedings. The relief of monetary compensation, as exemplary damages, in proceedings under
Article 32 by this Court or under Article 226 by the High Courts, for established infringement of
the indefeasible right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in
public law and is based on the strict liability for contravention of the guaranteed basic and
indefeasible rights of the citizen. The purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but
also to assure the citizen that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their interests
and preserve their rights. Therefore, when the court moulds the relief by granting
"compensation" in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement
or protection of fundamental rights, it does so under the public law by way of penalising the
wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has failed in its public
duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen. The payment of compensation in such cases
is not to be understood, as it is generally understood in a civil action for damages under the
private law but in the broader sense of providing relief by an order of making 'monetary amends'
under the public law for the wrong done due to breach of public duty, of not protecting the
fundamental rights of the citizen. The compensation is in the nature of 'exemplary damages'
awarded against the wrongdoer for the breach of its public law duty and is independent of the
rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law in an action
based on tort, through a suit instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction or/and prosecute the
offender under the penal law.
1000 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 35. This Court and the High Courts, being the protectors of the civil liberties of the
citizen, have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to grant relief in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to the victim or the heir of the victim
whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are established to have been
flagrantly infringed by calling upon the State to repair the damage done by its officers to the
fundamental rights of the citizen, notwithstanding the right of the citizen to the remedy by way of a
civil suit or criminal proceedings. The State, of course has the right to be indemnified by and take
such action as may be available to it against the wrongdoer in accordance with law ? through
appropriate proceedings. Of course, relief in exercise of the power under Article 32 or 226 would
be granted only once it is established that there has been an infringement of the fundamental rights
of the citizen and no other form of appropriate redressal by the court in the facts and
circumstances of the case, is possible?."

(emphasis supplied)

17. Similarly, the Apex Court again in the case of Indibily Creative Private Ltd. And
Others vs. Government of West Bengal And Others (2020) 12 SCC 436, has granted compensation
for consequential financial losses caused by State authorities. In this case the petitioner suffered
violation of fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) & (g), 14 and 21. The respondent State
authorities were directed to pay compensation of Rs 20 lakhs, which was a huge amount. The
relevant para is extracted hereinbelow:-

 "52. As a consequence of the pulling off of the film from the theatres where it was
screened on 16-2-2019, the petitioners have suffered a violation of their fundamental right to free
speech and expression and of their right to pursue a lawful business. This has been occasioned by
the acts of commission and, in any event, of omission on the part of the State in failing to affirm,
fulfil and respect the fundamental freedoms of the petitioners. We are clearly of the view that a
remedy in public law for the grant of remedial compensation is required in the present case. We
order and direct the respondents to pay to the petitioners compensation which we quantify at Rs 20
lakhs within a period of one month from the date of the present judgment."

18. It is undisputed that ten bovine animals, namely six heifers, two cows, one bull and one
bullock, were allegedly recovered from the petitioner?s vehicle. Admittedly, no beef or slaughtered
animal flesh was recovered from the vehicle. The sole basis of confiscation appears to be that the
animals were allegedly being transported without permit. However, there is no cogent material on
record to establish that the animals were in fact being transported to the State of Bihar for
slaughter. Mere interception of the vehicle near the Bihar border cannot ipso facto justify such
presumption. Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute legal proof.

19. Further, it is apparent that cruelty to animals under Section 5-B of the Act, 1955 may
attract separate proceedings, but the authorities below have not recorded any categorical finding
that the vehicle was liable to confiscation on account of cruelty inflicted upon the animals. Even
otherwise, for invoking such provisions, there must be evidence of such physical injury or
conditions of transport as would endanger the life of the animals. There must be such injury on the
body of the animals which either endangers their life or mutilates their body. It is apparent that a
4 All. Chandrabhan Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1001
simple injury which neither endangers their life nor mutilates their body, is not sufficient to attract
the provision of Section 5-B of the Act. Besides this, the prosecution is bound to prove such
injuries in accordance with law. In the instant case, neither such evidence has been brought on
record by the prosecution nor there is any discussion on this aspect by the authorities below.

20. The only ground assigned in the impugned orders is absence of permit. However, for
transportation of cows or its progeny within the State of Uttar Pradesh, no permit is required. In
absence of reliable evidence that the animals were being transported outside the State for slaughter,
the very substratum of the confiscation proceedings collapses.

21. This Court is, therefore, constrained to hold that the entire action of the State in
confiscating the petitioner?s vehicle was arbitrary, illegal and unsupported by the statutory
provisions of the Act of 1955.

22. It is equally disturbing that during pendency of proceedings before the Commissioner,
the State proceeded to auction the vehicle without awaiting adjudication of the petitioner's
challenge. Such arbitrary action has caused grave prejudice to the petitioner.

23. The petitioner has disclosed in the rejoinder affidavit that the vehicle had been
purchased in May, 2023 for Rs.5,20,000/-. Yet, the same was auctioned on 14.09.2025 for only
Rs.85,000/-. Even after accounting for depreciation @10% per annum, the vehicle was worth about
Rs.4 lacs at the time of auction. The sale for such grossly inadequate consideration demonstrates
manifest arbitrariness.

24. The material on record further indicates that the vehicle was a commercial transport
vehicle and the principal source of livelihood of the petitioner. It also appears that the vehicle had
been financed through Shriram Finance Ltd. and the petitioner was paying monthly loan
instalments of Rs.9,843/- until August, 2024, but defaulted thereafter owing to seizure of the
vehicle.

25. In the circumstances, this Court deems it just and proper to award compensation to the
petitioner. Accordingly, the State is directed to pay compensation @ Rs.15,000/- per month for a
period of about twelve months from 08.09.2024 to 14.09.2025, totalling Rs.1,80,000/-, together
with an additional sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and harassment.

26. Learned A.A.G. submits that, in the alternative, the State is prepared to restore the
vehicle to the petitioner. In the event the vehicle is restored, the petitioner shall nevertheless be
entitled to compensation towards loss of earnings from September, 2024 till the date of actual
restoration, calculated @ Rs.15,000/- per month. But if the vehicle is not restored to the petitioner,
then the petitioner is entitled to depreciated cost of the vehicle of Rs.4 lacs also, alongwith the
above damages.

27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
1002 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
28. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the petitioner is entitled to the following reliefs from
the State and its functionaries:-

 - The petitioner be paid damages @Rs.15,000/- per month for the economic loss from
08.09.2024 till the restoration of vehicle.

 -The petitioner be also paid damages of Rs.20,000/- for the mental agony and harassment.

 - If the State fails to restore the vehicle to the petitioner, then, the petitioner is also
entitled to depreciated cost of vehicle of Rs.4 lacs, but in this case, the petitioner will be entitled to
damages @ Rs.15,000/- per month for only 12 months.

 - The above amounts be paid to the petitioner within 15 days.

29. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.03.2025 passed
by the District Magistrate, Chandauli and the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner,
Varanasi Division, Varanasi are hereby quashed. The State is at liberty to realize the damages
awarded to the petitioner from the concerned employees and officials.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1002
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
THE HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1989

Ram Das & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the prosecution had proved the charge under S. 302 I.P.C. beyond reasonable
doubt where the F.I.R. was lodged after more than 24 hours of the incident, the informant was not an
eyewitness, one eyewitness turned hostile, the other eyewitness was found unreliable, the ocular evidence
was not supported by the medical evidence, and an eyewitness cited by the prosecution was not examined.
(Paras 23-33)

Headnotes
Criminal Law - Murder - Appreciation of evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - Burden of
proof in criminal trial - Prosecution required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - Where
the case rests on direct evidence, credibility of eyewitnesses assumes significance - Held,
prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 23, 32, 33)
Criminal Law - Murder - Delay in lodging F.I.R. - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - First
Information Report lodged after more than 24 hours of the occurrence - Informant not an