# Mohd. Chand v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 291
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-27
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 30265 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-chand-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54503
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

4 All. Mohd. Chand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
291
(2026) 4 ILRA 291
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 30265 of 2025

Mohd. Chand ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether a vehicle could be confiscated u/s 5-A(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow
Slaughter Act, 1955 in the absence of any conclusive evidence or authorized laboratory report establishing
that the meat allegedly recovered from the vehicle was "beef" within the meaning of s. 2(a) of the Act, and
whether the confiscation orders passed by District Magistrate and affirmed by Commissioner were legally
sustainable.

Headnotes
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - s. 109 - Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 -
ss. 2(a), 3, 5, 5A/8 - Arms Act, 1959 - ss. 25, 27 and 3 - Confiscation of vehicle - Transportation
of Beef - Burden of proof upon State authorities to prove that seized meat was "beef" - Arbitrary
action of State - Seizure of commercial vehicle - Compensation - Award of damages - Release of
vehicle - The petitioner challenged the confiscation of his Mahindra Pickup, which was allegedly
intercepted by police on 18.10.2024 and found carrying meat purported to be beef of five cows -
Consequent thereto, an FIR was registered under the various provisions of Uttar Pradesh
Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Arms Act,
1959 - Relying upon the alleged recovery, the District Magistrate, Baghpat initiated confiscation
proceedings u/s 5-A of Act of 1955 and ordered confiscation of the vehicle - The petitioner's
statutory appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division - Before the High Court,
the petitioner contended that the veterinary examination report merely expressed suspicion
regarding the origin of meat and no authorized laboratory report conclusively established that
the seized substance was beef - While the State submitted meat examination report, which also
disclosed that the seized meat was suspected of cow or its progeny - State admitted that there is
no documentary evidence on record to conclusively establish
that the said seized meat was beef.
Held: It is evident that the Examiner was not confident whether the seized meat was beef or not, as such,
without conclusively proving that the seized meat was beef, the vehicle of petitioner could not have been
confiscated - The Authorities below without examining this issue has proceeded to confiscate the vehicle of
petitioner, which is arbitrary, illegal and unwarranted under the provisions of Act of 1955 - It is apparent that
due to illegal and arbitrary action of functionaries of State, the petitioner has suffered serious economic loss
because the vehicle was a transport vehicle, which was the source of livelihood of petitioner - The petitioner
has been deprived from earning through this vehicle, since 18.10.2024, when it was illegally seized by
respondents - A period of more than 18 months has elapsed since then - In the facts and circumstances of
the case, for the economic loss/deprivation caused to petitioner and to compensate for arbitrary action of
State, it would be appropriate to award damages of Rs. 2 lacs to petitioner - The instant writ petition has
292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
merit and allowed - Impugned orders quashed, direction to State to pay damages to petitioner within seven
days, to release the vehicle of petitioner within three days. [Paras 10, 12 to 16] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Indibily Creative Private Ltd. And Others v. Government of West Bengal And Others (2020) 12 SCC 436 -
referred to

List of Acts
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955; Arms Act, 1959;
Constitution of India, 1950

List of Keywords
Article 226 of Constitution of India; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow
Slaughter Act, 1955; Arms Act, 1959; District Magistrate; Vehicle was confiscated; Transporting beef of five
cows; Appeal dismissed by Commissioner; No conclusive opinion was expressed by veterinary doctor
regarding seized meat; Meat examination report; Meat was examined at Veterinary Hospital; Examiner was
not confident whether the seized meat was beef or not; Compensation for consequential financial losses;
Source of livelihood; Economic loss/deprivation caused to petitioner; Award damages; Petition allowed; Liberty
to recover amount of damages from the Respondent No.2,3 and 4; Direction to release of vehicle within three
days.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 30265 of 2025

From the Judgment and Orders dated 16.06.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Baghpat in Case No.1024
of 2024, and Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in Case No. 2386 of 2025.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Petitioner(s):
Gurfan Ali

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

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

1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India challenging the impugned order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Baghpat,
in Case No.1024 of 2024, Computerized Case No.D202411080001024 (State vs. Mohd. Chand),
under Section 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, whereby his
Mahindra Pickup Registration No.DL-1L-AL1964 has been confiscated in favour of the State for
transporting beef of five cows and against the order of the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut
dated 14.11.2025 passed in Case No.2386 of 2025, Computerized Case No.C202511000002386
(Mohd. Chand vs. State of U.P. and others), under Section 5-A(8) of the Act of 1955, whereby the
appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and consequently the order of the District
Magistrate, Baghpat dated 16.06.2025 has been affirmed.

2. Factual matrix is that on 18.10.2024 at 1:40 hours while checking suspecting vehicles and
persons, the police on getting information, stopped the Bolero Vehicle No.DL-1L-AL1964, in
which, on search made beef of five cows were found. According to the FIR, the head and legs of
4 All. Mohd. Chand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
293
the cows were visible. Accordingly, the police also arrested the persons travelling in the above
vehicle after a brief encounter. An FIR in this matter was registered on 18.10.2024 at 5:33 hours,
being Case Crime No.347 of 2024, under Sections 109 of the B.N.S., 2023, Sections 3, 5, 5A/8 of
the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 25, 27 and 3 Arms Act, 1959
against the accused Chand and Saddam.

3. Since beef was found in the above vehicle, the District Magistrate, Baghpat issued notice to
the petitioner for confiscating the above vehicle and after hearing the parties by order dated
16.06.205, the vehicle was confiscated/seized on the ground that it was transporting beef of five
cows, which was prohibited. The petitioner challenged the above order by filing appeal, which was
also dismissed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut by impugned order dated
14.11.2025. By way of the instant writ petition, both the above orders have been challenged by the
petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the prosecution case, the
vehicle of the petitioner having Registration No.DL-1L-AL1964 was transporting beef of five cows
on 18.10.2024, but as per the report of the veterinary doctor, no conclusive opinion was expressed
regarding the origin of the above meat.

5. Learned counsel submitted that the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove that the
alleged meat seized from the vehicle of the petitioner was beef and unless and until, this fact was
proved beyond doubt, the vehicle of the petitioner cannot be confiscated by the State.

6. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that he has filed his counter affidavit on behalf of the
State enclosing meat examination report, which also disclosed that the seized meat was suspected
of cow or its progeny. Learned AGA admitted that there is no documentary evidence on record to
conclusively prove that the seized meat was beef.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

8. Section 2(a), 5 and 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 reads
as under:

"2(a) beef means flesh of cow but does not include such flesh contained in sealed
containers and imported as such into Uttar Pradesh;"

"5. Prohibition on sale of beef-Except as herein excepted and notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the time being in force, on person shall sell or transport or offer for
sale or transport or cause to be sold or transported beef or beef-products in any form except for
such medicinal purposes as may be prescribed.

Exception.-A person may sell and serve or cause to be sold and severed beef or beefproducts for consumption by a bonafide passenger in an aircraft or railway train."

"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
294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 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.

(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."

9. It is clear from Section 2(a) of the Act, 1955 that "beef" means flesh of cow and as per
Section 5 of the Act, the transportation of the beef is prohibited. It is also apparent that under
Section 5-A (7) of the Act,1955, the vehicle can only be confiscated if beef is transported in it. The
burden lies upon the State to prove that the meat seized from the vehicle of the petitioner was beef,
but as per the meat examination report dated 18.10.2024, the seized meat was suspected to be of
4 All. Mohd. Chand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
295
cow or its progeny. The meat was examined at Veterinary Hospital, Baghpat, but the Examiner was
not confident about the origin of the meat and for this reason, he requested for confirmatory
diagnosis of meat samples, but a report in that behalf is not available on record. As per Section 5A(6) of the Act, a report of authorized laboratory confirming beef is mandatory for initiating
proceedings under this Act.

10. It is evident that the Examiner was not confident whether the seized meat was beef or not,
as such, without conclusively proving that the seized meat was beef, the vehicle of the petitioner
could not have been confiscated in the instant case. The Authorities below without examining this
issue has proceeded to confiscate the vehicle of the petitioner, which is arbitrary, illegal and
unwarranted under the provisions of the Act of 1955.

11. The Apex Court 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 has 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."

12. It is apparent that due to illegal and arbitrary action of the functionaries of the State, the
petitioner has suffered serious economic loss because the vehicle was a transport vehicle, which
was the source of livelihood of the petitioner. The petitioner has been deprived from earning
through this vehicle, since 18.10.2024, when it was illegally seized by the respondents. A period of
more than 18 months has elapsed since then. In the facts and circumstances of this case, for the
economic loss/deprivation caused to the petitioner and to compensate for the arbitrary action of the
State, it would be appropriate to award damages of Rs. 2 lacs to the petitioner.

13. In view of the above facts, the instant writ petition has merit and is liable to be allowed.

14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.06.2025
passed by the District Magistrate, Baghpat and 14.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut
Division, Meerut, are hereby quashed.

15. The State is directed to pay damages of Rs.2 lacs (two lacs) to the petitioner within a
period of seven days. The State is at liberty to recover the above amount of damages from the
respondent no.2,3 and 4, in accordance with law.
296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

16. The respondents are directed to release the Vehicle No.DL-1L-AL1964 within three days
to the petitioner.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 296
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 306 of 2026

Poonam Pandey & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Kulsum & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for consideration
The matter pertains to execution of decree for possession of immovable property and the right of thirdparty/strangers to resist execution under Order XXI Rules, 97,99, 101, 103 CPC.

Headnotes
A. Code of Civil Procedure,1908-Order XXI Rules 97, 99, 101 & 103-Execution of decree for
possession-Stranger's/third party objection maintainable under Order XXI Rules 97/99 CPCIndependent right must be prima facie established-Mere claim without documentary support
insufficient-Objections filed to obstruct execution liable to rejection-Appeal dismissed. (Para 16
to 25)
Held
 The court ruled that A stranger claiming independent right, title or interest in the decretal property is entitled
to resist execution and seek adjudication of such claim in execution proceedings itself. Rejection of objections
solely on the ground that the objector is neither a decree-holder under Rule 97 nor a person already
dispossessed under Rule 99 is legally unsustainable. However, where the objector fails to produce any
material establishing a prima facie independent right or interest in the property and the objections appear
intended merely to frustrate execution of a decree that has attained finality, the executing court is justified in
rejecting such objections. Though the executing court erred on the question of maintainability, the appellants
having failed to substantiate their alleged ownership or inheritance rights, the order rejecting their objections
was liable to be affirmed. Appeal dismissed. (E-6)

Case law Cited
Periyammal (Dead) Thru LRs. And Others Vs. V. Rajamani and Another (2025) SCC OnLine SC 507, N.S.S.
Narayan Sharma Vs. Goldstone Exports (P) Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC 662, Sameer Singh Vs. Abdul Rab (2015) 1 SCC
379: (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 509, Brahmdeo Chaudhary Vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal, (1997) 3 SCC 694, Silverline
Forum (P) Ltd Vs. Rajiv Trust, (1998) 3 SCC 723, Bhanwar Lal Vs. Satyanarain (1995) 1 SCC 6, Rahul S. Shah
Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021) 6 SCC 418 : (2021) 3 SCC (Civ) 569, Alka Shrirang Chavan and Another Vs.
Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsle and Others (2026) SCC Online SC 55, Usha Sinha Vs. Dina Ram (2008) 7 SCC
144-referred to.

List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure,1908, Transfer of Property Act,1882.

List of Keywords