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

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 730
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14242 of 2025
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Anil Kumar-X
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nitesh-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54636
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

G.A.
Issue for Consideration
Remedy
against
the
impugned
order
whereby
the
vehicle
of
the
petitioner
confiscated under section 5(a) of The Uttar
Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
226- The Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow
Slaughter Act. 1955 - Section 5 (a) - The
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section
397- Vehicle of the petitioner was seized
by the police - Impugned order to
confiscate the vehicle of the petitioner
was passed - 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 -
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 - the said
lacuna which occurred due to oversight of
the legislature was rectified later on by
issuing a notification dated 15.10.2024.
Petition disposed with liberty to approach
the proper forum for filing a criminal
revision.

Held-
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 writ against the impugned
order not maintainable. (Para 9) (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9028 of 2021
(Mustakeem Begum vs. State of U.P. and 3 Ors)

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950- The Uttar
Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act.
1955 - The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973

List of Keywords
Vehicle confiscation order; Legality of action
under section 5-A; Criminal revision will lie;
Against the confiscation order in U.P. Prevention
of
Cow
Slaughter
Act,
1955
7 All. Nitesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
731
Case Arising From
Confiscation order dated 22.3.2025 passed by
the District Magistrate Ballia in Case No. 3080 of
2024 (State vs. Nitesh Kumar) under Section
5(a) of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act,
1955, where vehicle No. UP 60 BT 9421 of the
petitioner was confiscated.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner :- Devottam Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A

Judgment/Order of the High Court

## Text

730 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 265-G of Cr.P.C. against which no
appeal lies, but the writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

13. Hence, we are of the considered
view that the life and liberty of the
petitioner will be jeopardised if his
grievance is not redressed in this writ
petition. Thus, the writ petition is allowed.
The sentence of one year and six months
imprisonment awarded to the petitioner in
all the six session cases, shown in the chart,
shall run concurrently. The fine has been
deposited by the petitioner, per enclosed
receipts.

14. The Registry to inform the District
Jail, Aligarh to release the petitioner-
Santosh,
considering
the
concurrent
running of sentences.

15. The copy of this judgment shall
also be sent to Additional District and
Sessions Judge/Special Judge E.C. Act,
Aligarh and learned District Judge Aligarh
for ensuring compliance.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 730
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14242 of 2025

Nitesh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Devottam Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.
Issue for Consideration
Remedy
against
the
impugned
order
whereby
the
vehicle
of
the
petitioner
confiscated under section 5(a) of The Uttar
Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
226- The Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow
Slaughter Act. 1955 - Section 5 (a) - The
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section
397- Vehicle of the petitioner was seized
by the police - Impugned order to
confiscate the vehicle of the petitioner
was passed - 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 -
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 - the said
lacuna which occurred due to oversight of
the legislature was rectified later on by
issuing a notification dated 15.10.2024.
Petition disposed with liberty to approach
the proper forum for filing a criminal
revision.

Held-
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 writ against the impugned
order not maintainable. (Para 9) (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9028 of 2021
(Mustakeem Begum vs. State of U.P. and 3 Ors)

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950- The Uttar
Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act.
1955 - The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973

List of Keywords
Vehicle confiscation order; Legality of action
under section 5-A; Criminal revision will lie;
Against the confiscation order in U.P. Prevention
of
Cow
Slaughter
Act,
1955
7 All. Nitesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
731
Case Arising From
Confiscation order dated 22.3.2025 passed by
the District Magistrate Ballia in Case No. 3080 of
2024 (State vs. Nitesh Kumar) under Section
5(a) of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act,
1955, where vehicle No. UP 60 BT 9421 of the
petitioner was confiscated.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner :- Devottam Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A

Judgment/Order of the High Court

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Devottam Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned AGA for the State.

2. Challenge in this present petition is
the confiscation order dated 22.3.2025
passed by the District Magistrate Ballia in
Case No. 3080 of 2024 (State vs. Nitesh
Kumar) under Section 5(a) of U.P.
Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955,
where vehicle No. UP 60 BT 9421 of the
petitioner was confiscated.

3. Brief facts of this case is that on
basis of an information, the above vehicle
of the petitioner was seized by the police
personnel and they found that it was
carrying certain bovines. It was also
suspected that the said vehicle was used for
illegal
transportation
of
bovines.
Thereafter, an FIR bearing Case Crime No.
249 of 2024, under Section 3/5(a)/8 of U.P.
Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.
Thereafter, an application before District
Magistrate was forwarded with a prayer to
confiscate the aforesaid vehicle. Proceeding
under Section 5a(7) under the aforesaid Act
was initiated by the District Magistrate.
Notice was also issued to present petitioner
who after his appearance file his objections.
But
his
objections
were
not
found
satisfactory and the impugned order to
confiscate the vehicle of the petitioner was
passed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that petitioner is involved in
business of selling milk and his vehicle is
engaged
in
the
said
business
for
transportation of milk. But certain police
personnel continue to harass him as he is
unable to gratify their illegal demands.
Present proceedings against him were
drawn only due to the said vendetta. The
petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and he
has also filed the registration certificate.
Therefore, the impugned order dated
22.3.2025 is illegal and is liable to be
quashed and the confiscated vehicle be
released in favour of the petitioner.

5. Learned AGA has submitted that
U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act,
1955 does not mention any remedy against
confiscation order passed in the Act. In
given circumstances, it was held by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No. 9028 of 2021
(Mustakeem Begum vs. State of U.P. and 3
Ors) that the Act does not provide any
forum of appeal or revision against the
order of confiscation regarding the seized
vehicle passed by the District Magistrate.
Thereafter, it was held 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 against such order will
lie. Though it was mentioned that such
orders are revisable before the Sessions
court, yet many criminal revisions by this
High Court were also entertained. Later on,
a notification was issued by Government of
Uttar Pradesh on 15.10.2024 wherein it was
laid down that if the legality or propriety of
the action taken under the Section 5a of
732 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
theU.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act,
1955 is to be challenged, the same could be
challenged
before
the
Divisional
Commissioner. Therefore, present criminal
writ against the impugned order is not
maintainable.

6. Confronted with the above
notification dated
15.10.2024,
learned
counsel for the petitioner prayed that he
may be permitted to file a criminal revision
against
the
impugned
order
before
Divisional Commissioner and it was also
prayed that delay occurred under the above
circumstances be also condoned.

7. After hearing the counsel for the
parties, it becomes apparent thatU.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 inU.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.

8. We 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/VIP-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 subsection (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
7 All. Diwakar Nath Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
733

9.

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 theDistrict
Magistrate in U.P. Prevention of Cow
Slaughter Act, 1955. Hence, the present
criminal writ against the impugned order
after
the
said
notification
is
not
maintainable as petitioner has equal and
efficacious
remedy
to
ventilate
his
grievances. However, we are of the view
that the above notification which was
issued on 15.10.2024 would not have come
to the notice of the petitioner. Therefore we
find it appropriate to dispose of this writ
petition with a liberty to the petitioner to
approach the proper forum for filing a
criminal revision within a month from the
date of order and if petitioner approaches
the forum as directed by this Court, the
concerned Division Commissioner will
entertain his revision without going into the
question of limitation.

10. Since we are aware that issue of
this nature frequently arises before Sessions
Judges, who are vested with the judicial
power to adjudicate such orders, it is
directed that copy of this judgment shall be
circulated amongst all the Judicial Officers
within State of U.P. through the District and
Sessions Judges concerned. Similarly, a
copy of this order shall also be sent to
Director of Judicial Training and Research
Institute.

11. Let a copy of this order be placed
before the Registrar General of this Court,
who will comply the directions given in
para 10 of this judgment.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 733
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2213 of 2025

Diwakar Nath Tripathi ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi, Sri Abhishek
Mishra, Sri Chandrakesh Mishra, Sri K.K. Roy, Sri
Prabal Pratap, Sri Daya Shanker Mishra (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Sri Ashutosh Kumar Sand (G.A.), Sri Manish
Goyal (Sr. Adv./A.A.G.), Sri Pawan Kumar Singh,
Sri Prashant Singh, Sri Saurabh Sachan

Issue for Consideration
Whether the allegations in the application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. disclose any cognizable
offence and are sufficient to constitute the
alleged offences

Head Notes
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 156(3) - Application U/s 156(3)
moved
alleging
Opp.
Party
No.2
concealing facts obtained political and
lucrative
position
on
the
basis
of
misrepresentation and forged documents -
Revisionist is pretentiously aggrieved but
potentially dangerous - No force in the
contention
-
No
locus
to
move
an
application under Section 156 (3) - wheels
of criminal justice system cannot be
permitted to be clogged by frivolous
complaints - Proceedings appear to be
prima facie initiated maliciously by the
revisionist with oblique motives. Revision
rejected.

Held- The allegations of the complainant, who
is admittedly neither victim nor aggrieved with
the educational certificates of respondent no. 2
do not disclose cognizable offence, hence this
criminal revision is liable to be rejected -
Impugned
order is based
upon relevant
considerations
and
supported
by
cogent