# Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 746
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-24
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 7938 of 2023
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra, Vivek Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajesh-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50566
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Law-Constitution
of
India,1950-Article
226
-
U.P.
Cow
Slaughter (Prevention) Act, 1955-Sections
3/5A/8 -Animal Cruelty Act,1960 -
Section 11 - maintainability of- Pick-up,
registered in the name of the petitioner,
was seized as it was found transporting
cows-Proceedings under Section 5A(7) of
the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act,
1955 were drawn based on the reports of
the Superintendent of Police and Deputy
Inspector After hearing the parties, the
vehicle was confiscated in favour of the
State- Sub-section 7 reveals that the
District
Magistrate/Commissioner
of
Police has been authorized to deal with
proceedings of confiscation and release of
a vehicle-No appeal or revision is provided
against such order-However, in view of
Section 11 which provides that where the
Act of relevant rules in context of search,
acquisition,
disposal
and
seizure
are
silent, the relevant provisions of Code of
Criminal Procedure shall apply-The order
impugned would, therefore, be revisable
under
Section
of
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure- The writ petition is, therefore,
dismissed as not maintainable granting
liberty to the petitioner to file revision
against the order impugned for redressal
of his grievances.(Para 1 to 11)
8 All. Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
747
The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

## Text

746 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"We are conscious of the fact though a
satisfaction of want of proper, fair,
impartial
and
effective
investigation
eroding its credence and reliability is the
precondition for a direction for further
investigation or reinvestigation, submission
of a charge sheet ipso facto, or the
pendency of the trial can by no means, be a
prohibitive impediment. The contextual
facts and the attendant circumstances have
to be singularly evaluated and analyzed to
decide
the
needfulness
of
further
investigation or re-investigation to unravel
the truth and mete out justice to the parties.
The prime concern and the endeavour of
the Court of law should be to secure justice
on the basis of true facts which ought to be
unearthed through a committed, resolved
and a competent investigating agency."

18. The case in hand pertains to a
cognizable offence, and, therefore, we are
constrained to hold that submissions made
by counsel for the petitioner are without
substance.

19. The police has unfettered power
of investigation and such investigation can
continue even after the charge sheet has
been filed under section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. and
cognizance has been taken thereon. No
formal permission of the Magistrate is
required
for
carrying
out
further
investigation even thereafter.

20. Accordingly, for the reasons stated
above and since the submissions of counsel
for the petitioners are found to be without
substance, the writ petition fails and is
liable to be dismissed.

21.

The
writ
petition
stands
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 746
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

Writ-A No. 7938 of 2023

Rajesh Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sudarshan Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., C.S.C.

A.
Criminal
Law-Constitution
of
India,1950-Article
226
-
U.P.
Cow
Slaughter (Prevention) Act, 1955-Sections
3/5A/8 -Animal Cruelty Act,1960 -
Section 11 - maintainability of- Pick-up,
registered in the name of the petitioner,
was seized as it was found transporting
cows-Proceedings under Section 5A(7) of
the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act,
1955 were drawn based on the reports of
the Superintendent of Police and Deputy
Inspector After hearing the parties, the
vehicle was confiscated in favour of the
State- Sub-section 7 reveals that the
District
Magistrate/Commissioner
of
Police has been authorized to deal with
proceedings of confiscation and release of
a vehicle-No appeal or revision is provided
against such order-However, in view of
Section 11 which provides that where the
Act of relevant rules in context of search,
acquisition,
disposal
and
seizure
are
silent, the relevant provisions of Code of
Criminal Procedure shall apply-The order
impugned would, therefore, be revisable
under
Section
of
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure- The writ petition is, therefore,
dismissed as not maintainable granting
liberty to the petitioner to file revision
against the order impugned for redressal
of his grievances.(Para 1 to 11)
8 All. Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
747
The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar
Mishra, J. & Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant writ petition seeks the
following relief:-

"(i) issue, a writ, order or direction in
the nature of quash the order dated
03.02.2023 passed by respondent no.2
(District Magistrate, District Chandauli) in
Case No. 1032/2022 Computer Case No.
D202214180001032)
(State
Vs.
Ravi
Kumar Gautam and others) U/s 5(A) of
U.P. Cow Slaughter (Prevention) Act, 1955,
arising out in Case Crime No. 205 of 2022,
U/S
3/5A/8
U.P.
Cow
Slaughter
(Prevention) Act and 11 Animal Cruelty
Act, P.S. Chandauli, District Chandauli. "

3. A Pick-up, bearing registration
number UP65JT6230 which is stated to be
registered in the name of the petitioner, was
seized as it was found transporting cows.
Proceedings under Section 5A(7) of the
U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act,
1955 were drawn based on the reports of
the Superintendent of Police and Deputy
Inspector dated 05.11.2022 and 04.11.2022.
After hearing the parties, the vehicle was
confiscated in favour of the State. The SHO
Chandauli has been authorized to auction
the vehicle and to deposit the sale proceeds
in the relevant account, vide order dated
03.02.2023, passed by the respondent no.2.

4. The petitioner is aggrieved by this
order dated 03.02.2023 and, therefore, this
instant petition.

5. The contention of learned AGA is
that the writ petition is not maintainable
and that the order impugned is, revisable.

6. For considering the issue raised,
it would be relevant to refer Section 5A
of the Act which deals with regulation of
transport of cows etc. The relevant
Section is Sub-section 7 which reads as
follows:-

"(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."

7. Also relevant for the purposes of
this writ petition is sub-section 11 which is
quoted below:-

"(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."

8. Perusal of Sub-section 7 reveals
that the District Magistrate/Commissioner
of Police has been authorized to deal with
proceedings of confiscation and release of a
vehicle. No appeal or revision is provided
against such order. However, in view of
Section 11 which provides that where the
Act of relevant rules in context of search,
acquisition, disposal and seizure are silent,
the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal
Procedure shall apply.
748 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. Under the circumstances, the
submission of learned AGA appears to have
force. The order impugned in the writ
petition would, therefore, be revisable
under Section of Code of Criminal
Procedure which reads as follows:-

"Section 397. Calling for records to
exercise powers of revision.

(1) The High Court or any Sessions
Judge may call for and examine the record
of any proceeding before any inferior
Criminal Court situate within its or his
local jurisdiction for the purpose of
satisfying itself or himself as to the
correctness, legality or propriety of any
finding, sentence or order,- recorded or
passed, and as to the regularity of any
proceedings of such inferior Court, and
may, when calling for such record, direct
that the execution of any sentence or order
be suspended, and if the accused is in
confinement, that he be released on bail or
on his own bond pending the examination
of the record. Explanation.- All Magistrates
whether Executive or Judicial, and whether
exercising original or appellate jurisdiction,
shall be deemed to be inferior to the
Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-
section and of section 398.

(2) The powers of revision conferred
by sub- section (1) shall not be exercised in
relation to any interlocutory order passed in
any
appeal,
inquiry,
trial
or
other
proceeding.

(3) If an application under this section
has been made by any person either to the
High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no
further application by the same person shall
be entertained by the other of them."

10. Under the circumstances and since
the order impugned is a final order, we are
constrained to hold that against the
impugned order, the petitioner has a
statutory alternative remedy of filing a
revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C..

11. The writ petition is, therefore,
dismissed as not maintainable granting
liberty to the petitioner to file revision
against the order impugned for redresal of
his grievances.

12. It would be relevant to observe
that in our considered opinion, the
petitioner may be entitled to the benefit of
Section 11 of the Limitation Act in case,
such plea is raised before the revisional
court.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 748
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

First Appeal No. 170 of 2023

Eti Tyagi ...Appellant
Versus
Prince Tyagi ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Atul Dixit

Counsel for the Respondent:
--

(A) Family Law - Family Court Act, 1984 -
Section
19(1)
-
Appeal,
The
Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13-B -
Divorce by mutual consent - all amicable
settlements is bound to be respected and
recognized by the courts of law in all such
cases
where
the
MOU
remains
unquestionable and the parties have acted
upon freely in the pursuit of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India to live with
dignity - an amicable settlement deserves