# Manjoo Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 340
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-07
- **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 48021 of 2025
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manjoo-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54000
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
same would apply only to salaries, as provided under Rule 48 and 48-A of Order XXI of the Code
of Civil Procedure. The entire chapter for execution of decrees cannot be made applicable as the
Code of Criminal Procedure is quite exhaustive when it comes to the manner of recovery of arrears
of maintenance /enforcement of orders of maintenance. The provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure specifically Section 60 and Order XXI have been provided under Rule 36 in addition to
the regular modes of recovery for salaried professions. Thus, the contention of the applicant that the
recovery can be made only by invoking the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, that too,
with respect to the execution of money decrees is not in consonance with the directions given by
the Supreme Court, the Family Courts Act and Rules and the Code of Criminal Procedure.

28. As stated above, no arrest warrant can be issued for recovery of arrears of maintenance,
this application is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.09.2025 passed by Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Court No.2, Aligarh in Misc. Case No.548 of 2024 (Smt. Shajia Khan &
Another vs. Mohd. Shahzad) under Section 128 Cr.P.C., Police Station - Banna Devi, District
Aligarh is, thus, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Court No. 2, Aligarh, to decide the application for enforcement of the order of maintenance
strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions and the directions given by the Supreme Court
in Rajnesh (supra).
---------
(2026) 1 ILRA 340
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 48021 of 2025

Manjoo Devi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether criminal revision against confiscation order passed by the District Magistrate under
S. 5-A of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 lies before the Sessions Judge or the Divisional
Commissioner in light of Government Notification dated 15.10.2024. (Para 12, 14)

Headnotes
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.) - S. 528 - Maintainability - Confiscation of vehicle -
U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 - S. 5-A - Statutory Remedy - Revisional Jurisdiction.
Criminal Revision - Maintainability - "Since the revision was filed after Government Notification
dated 15.10.2024, therefore, it was not maintainable before the learned Sessions Judge."
Government Notification dated 15.10.2024 - Revisional Jurisdiction - "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 S. 5-A call for and examine the record of any case and
pass such order thereon as he may deem fit."
1 All. Manjoo Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
341
Revisional Authority - Divisional Commissioner - "It is further Clarified that aforesaid authority
Conferred to Division Commissioner may be known as Revisional Jurisdication."
Efficacious Remedy - "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."
Liberty to approach proper forum - Limitation - "the concerned Divisional Commissioner will
entertain her revision without going into the question of limitation."
Interim Protection - "the execution of order dated 19.10.2024 shall not be given effect to, till
final judgment of Revisional Court." (Para 7,13,14,15,16)

Held: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - the concerned
Divisional Commissioner will entertain her revision without going into the question of limitation - the execution
of order dated 19.10.2024 shall not be given effect to, till final judgment of Revisional Court - With the
aforesaid observations, the present application is disposed of. (Paras 12 - 17)

Case Law Cited
Mustakeem Begum vs. State of U.P. and Three Others, Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 9028 of 2021

List of Acts
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023; U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955; Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960; Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), 1973; Uttar Pradesh General Clauses
Act, 1904; Constitution of India (Article 226 and Article 348)

List of Keywords
Confiscation; Bovines; Revisional Jurisdiction; Divisional Commissioner; Notification; Maintainability;
Efficacious remedy; Limitation.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Application U/S 528 B.N.S.S. filed to quash an order dated 10.10.2025 passed by
learned Sessions Judge, Chandauli, in Criminal Revision No. 134 of 2025; and order dated 19.10.2024 passed
by District Magistrate, Chandauli, in Case No. 393 of 2024 under S. 5(A) of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter
Act, 1955, arising out of Case Crime No. 34 of 2024.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Sri Shivam Yadav
Advs. for the Respondents:
Sri Ravindra Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

(Delivered by Hon'ble 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.
342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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. 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
1 All. Manjoo Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
343
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 coordinate 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. 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 :
344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"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, 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.

(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
1 All. Manjoo Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
345
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. 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
346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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). 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.
---------
(2026) 1 ILRA 346
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD-28.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Jail Appeal No. 311 of 2018

Jagannath ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration