# Vaseem Ahmad Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 108
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 4956 of 2023
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vaseem-ahmad-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49454
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section - 452 - U.P. Prevention of
Cow Slaughter Act, 155 - Sections 2(a), 3,
5, 5-A, 5-A(1), 5-A(7), 5-A(11), 8 & 10 -
U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Rules,
12 All. Vaseem Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
109
1964 - Rule 7 & 16 - Constitution of
India,1950 - Article - 300(A) -Criminal
Revision - Revisionist challenging the order of
confiscation of motorcycle u/s 5A(7) of the Act,
1955 - Inspection - FIR - alleged that accused
persons were used motorcycles for transporting
beef within the St. - Seized motorcycle -
revisionist moved application for releasing of the
vehicle during pendency of the case - Police
Report was sought - revisionist Charge-sheeted
- report submitted by the police authority
stating that motorcycle in question was made a
case property and is liable to be confiscated -
Application Rejected - Revision - court finds
that, there is no statutory prohibition or
regulation against beef transport within U.P.,
and that confiscation power under the Act, 1955
applies only to illegal inter-St. transport of cow,
bull, or bullock - held, the confiscation order
was held to be beyond the scope of the Act and
violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution -
hence, the revision was allowed, and the vehicle
was ordered to be released to the owner upon
furnishing
a
bond
-
directions
issued
accordingly. (Para 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)

Revision Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

Ashfaq Ahmad Vs St. of UP & anr.[9 (1) ACR
233]

## Text

108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
procedure laid down in Sections 200 and
202 of the Code for taking cognizance of a
case under Section 190(1)(a) though it is
open to him to act under Section 200 or
Section 202 also.

13. On the basis of foregoing
discussion, no doubt can be expressed on
jurisdiction of the criminal court or
magistrate to take cognizance of alleged
offence on the basis of Section 190(1)(b)
Cr.P.C.
in
a
case,
even
though
a
final/closure report has been filed by the
investigating Officer in favour of the
concerned accused without adopting the
procedure prescribed under Chapter XVI of
the Code and court below has adopted the
procedure in present case by taking
cognizance of the offence alleged against
present revisionists and issuing process to
them to face trial for alleged offences.
However, on perusal of impugned order, it
cannot be comprehended that learned court
below has applied its judicial mind while
exercising his discretion in issuing process
against those accused persons who are not
chargesheeted by the Investigating Officer
for the alleged offences. The existence of
powers is one thing and due exercise of
power is other thing. The impugned order
is not a speaking order alteast in respect of
present revisionists. Undoubtedly, the trial
court was well within its bound to issue
process to present revisionists neglecting or
rejecting final report submitted by the
Investigating Officer in their favour but the
order must be reasoned which could
disclose judicial mind of the court while
exercising its power to take cognizance and
issuing process to such an accused who has
not been chargesheeted by the Investigating
Agency. However, the impugned order is a
criptic order and the learned court below
has not expressed any reason or discuss any
material on the basis of which the court
proceeded to take cognizance of the
offence against the present revisionist and
issued summon to them to face trial.
Therefore, the impugned order which is
devoid of any reason cannot be sustained
under law and the revision is liable to be
allowed.

14. In view of aforesaid, present
revisions stand allowed and the impugned
order passed by the court below is set aside
in respect of present revisionists.

15. The matter is remanded back to
court below with direction to pass a
reasoned order in respect of present
revisionists, in the light of judicial authority
cited above, after giving opportunity of
hearing to the prosecutrix, if it deemed fit,
as well as the prosecuting officer in charge
of the case.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 108
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4956 of 2023

Vaseem Ahmad ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Pradeep Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section - 452 - U.P. Prevention of
Cow Slaughter Act, 155 - Sections 2(a), 3,
5, 5-A, 5-A(1), 5-A(7), 5-A(11), 8 & 10 -
U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Rules,
12 All. Vaseem Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
109
1964 - Rule 7 & 16 - Constitution of
India,1950 - Article - 300(A) -Criminal
Revision - Revisionist challenging the order of
confiscation of motorcycle u/s 5A(7) of the Act,
1955 - Inspection - FIR - alleged that accused
persons were used motorcycles for transporting
beef within the St. - Seized motorcycle -
revisionist moved application for releasing of the
vehicle during pendency of the case - Police
Report was sought - revisionist Charge-sheeted
- report submitted by the police authority
stating that motorcycle in question was made a
case property and is liable to be confiscated -
Application Rejected - Revision - court finds
that, there is no statutory prohibition or
regulation against beef transport within U.P.,
and that confiscation power under the Act, 1955
applies only to illegal inter-St. transport of cow,
bull, or bullock - held, the confiscation order
was held to be beyond the scope of the Act and
violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution -
hence, the revision was allowed, and the vehicle
was ordered to be released to the owner upon
furnishing
a
bond
-
directions
issued
accordingly. (Para 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)

Revision Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

Ashfaq Ahmad Vs St. of UP & anr.[9 (1) ACR
233]

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. The present revision has been filed
challenging the order dated 12.12.2022,
whereby, the motorcycle of the revisionist
bearing No. UP 71 AQ 4187 has been
confiscated in exercise of powers under
section 5A(7) of the UP Prevention of Cow
Slaughter Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to
as the Cow Slaughter Act).

2. The facts in brief are, that an FIR
was registered as Case Crime No. 0042 of
2021 under Section 8/5/3 of the Cow
Slaughter Act in terms of the FIR which is
contained as Annexure No. 1. It was
alleged that four persons who were on two
motorcycles were apprehended on being
challanged, the said persons fled leaving
behind the motorcycles and on the
inspection of the motorcycle and the bags
kept thereupon, one quintal 200 grams of
beef was allegedly recovered from the
bags. Subsequently, the ownership of the
motorcycle was traced to the revisionist
and based upon the said, the revisionist was
charged of commission of an offence under
Section 3/5A/8 of the Cow Slaughter Act.

3. The revisionist claiming to be the
owner of the seized motorcycle, moved an
application for release of the vehicle during
the pendency of the case vide application
dated 6.4.2021 on which a report was
called. The Superintendent of Police,
Fatehpur
submitted
his
report
dated
18.10.2022 stating that the revisionist was
chargesheeted for commission of an
offence under Section 3/5A/8 of the Cow
Slaughter Act and as he was transporting
the beef on the motorcycle in question, the
motorcycle in question was made a case
property and is liable to be confiscated.

4. The District Magistrate empowered
by virtue of section 5A(7), proceeded to
pass an order of confiscation (impugned ),
recording that in terms of the report dated
18.10.2022 given by the Superintendent of
Police, Fatehpur regarding involvement of
the vehicle in question in transportation of
beef for which an offence was registered
under Section 3/5A/8 of the Cow Slaughter
Act, and as the revisionist could not
produce any credible evidence to the
contrary to the effect that the vehicle was
not used for transportation as such, the
same was liable for confiscation under
section 5A(7) of the Cow Slaughter Act.

5. Counsel for the revisionist argues
that the confiscation is contrary to the
110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mandate of the Act and also violates the
rights enshrined under Article 300(A) of
the Constitution of India as the confiscation
is not a proper exercise of power, the order
deserves to be quashed.

6. The learned A.G.A., on the other
hand, justifies the order by arguing that in
terms of the report, the vehicle in question
was used for transportation of beef as is
clear from the perusal of the FIR which
itself records that the beef was being
transported from Ajua to be sold at Afoi
(both within the State of Uttar Pradesh), as
such the power of confiscation was rightly
exercised by the District Magistrate, who is
duly empowered to do so.

7. To appreciate the issue at hand, it is
essential to look into the provisions of the
Cow Slaughter Act. Section 2(a) of the
Cow Slaughter Act defines beef. Section 2a
of the Cow Slaughter Act is being
reproduced hereinunder:-

2....

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

8. Section 3 of the said Act restrains
the slaughter of cow, bull or bullock in any
place in Uttar Pradesh. Section 5A(1) of the
Act provides that no person shall transport or
offer for transporting or cause to be
transported any cow or bull or Bullock, the
slaughter whereof is punishable under the Act
from any place within the State to any place
outside the State except on a permit issued by
the State Government. Section 5A(7) of the
Act states that 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 and the
District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police is
empowered
to
take
proceedings
of
confiscation and release in respect of the said
seized vehicle.

9. Section 5A(11) of the Cow Slaughter
Act provides that the provisions of the Act or
the related rules in the context of search,
acquisition, disposal and seizure shall follow
the Cr.P.C., where the rules in respect to the
said are silent.

Section 5A is quoted herein below:-

"...5-A. Regulation on transport of
cow, etc.-(1) No person shall transport or
offer for transport or cause to be transported
any cow, bull or bullock, the slaughter
whereof in any place in Uttar Pradesh
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.

(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.

(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."

Section 8 of the said Act provides
for penalty in respect of a person who
contravenes Section 3, 5 or 5A.
12 All. Vaseem Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
111

10. In terms of the powers conferred
by virtue of section 10 of the said Act,rules
have been framed known as the Uttar
Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter
Rules, 1964. Rule 16 of the said rules
provide for the manner of grant of permit
for transportation of any cow, bull or
bullock,
the
slaughter
whereof
is
punishable under the Act and provides that
any cow, bull or bullock transported
without a valid permit shall be confiscated
and
auctioned.
Rule
16
is
quoted
hereinbelow:-

....16 (1) Any person intending to
transport or to offer for transport or to
cause to transport any cow, bull or bullock,
the slaughter whereof is punishable under
this Act in any place in Uttar Pradesh from
any place within the State to any place
outside the State shall apply for a permit to
the licensing authority on prescribed Form
"G".

11. On the plain reading of the
provisions of the Act and the rules framed
thereunder, it is clear that the vehicle on
which the beef is alleged to be transported
can be confiscated only in terms of the
mandate of Rule 7 of section 5A.

12. To attract
the power of
confiscation conferred by virtue of Rule 7
of Section 5A, it is essential to allege and
establish that the vehicle on which beef is
being transported is done in violation of the
provisions of this Act and the relevant
rules. It is essential to note that for
transportation of cow, bull or bullock
specific rules for issuance of permit are
prescribed under Rule 16, however, the
transportation of the cow, bull or bullock,
within the State of Uttar Pradesh (as is in
the present case) does not require any
permit as has also been held by this Court
in the case of Ashfaq Ahmad Vs. State of
UP & another 9 (1) ACR 233.

13. Article 300-A of the Constitution
of India prescribes that no one shall be
deprived
of
his
property
except
in
accordance with law. The 'law',it is fairly
well settled, should be a law framed by the
Legislature. Thus, to deprive a person of
his property (in the present case the
motorcycle), it is essential that the Act
framed by the Legislature prescribes for
power of confiscation and subject to any
limitations prescribed therein.

14. The only power traceable for
confiscation of a vehicle alleged to be
transporting beef is traceable to Section
5A(7) which applies only when the beef or
the cow is being transported in violation of
the provisions of this Act. The restrictions
on transportation in terms of the Act and
the Rules framed thereunder is only
applicable in respect of transportation of
cow, bull or bullock that too in any place in
Uttar Pradesh from any place outside the
State. In the entire Act or the rules there
exists
no
provision
barring
transportation of beef . The restriction
placed under Section 5A of the Cow
Slaughter Act is only in respect of
transportation of cow, bull or bullock
that too only from a place outside the
State to any place within the State. There
is no bar or restriction of transport of
beef even from any place outside the
State to any place inside the State,In the
present case the allegation being alleged
transportation of beef on a vehicle
(motorcycle)
within
two
places
in
state,is
nither
prohibited
nor
even
regulated
thus,
the
foundation
for
confiscation on charge of transportation
in violation of the provision of this Act
is prima facie not established.
112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. The reference to section 5A(11)
with regard to the applicability of Cr.P.C.
,where the Act and the Rules are silent,
applies
only
in
respect
of
search,
acquisition, disposal and seizure and not to
the power of confiscation. Even otherwise,
the power to confiscate vests in terms of
the mandate of Cr.P.C. by virtue of Section
452 of the Cr.P.C. that too in respect of any
property which is in the custody of the
Criminal Court and that too after the
enquiry or trial is concluded. In the present
case admittedly, the trial is continuing the
allegation
on
the
revisionist
is
of
transporting beef on the motorcycle within
the State of Uttar Pradesh which is neither
prohibited nor restrained even on a plain
reading of section 5A(1) of the Cow
Slaughter Act, as such, I have no hesitation
in holding that the power of confiscation
has been exercised without any authority of
law and on a misreading of section 5A(7)
of the Cow Slaughter Act and for the said
reasons the confiscation order cannot be
sustained and is liable to be quashed.

16. The court concerned with which
the property bearing vehicle No. UP 71 AQ
4187 is made a case property is directed to
release the same on the revisionist
establishing
his
ownership
and
on
furnishing a bond of Rs. 5000.

17. The revision is allowed in terms
of the said order.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 112
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.11.2023

BEFORE

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

FAFO No. 1659 of 2004
Branch Manager, The National Insurance
Co. Ltd., Branch Office Ist, Meerut
 ...Appellant
Versus
Rajbeer @ Rajkumar @ Raju & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri S.K. Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.A. Ansari

A. Civil Law - Workmen's Compensation
Act,1923-Section
30-challenge
to-
compensation
awarded
by
the
commissioner-claimant had suffered a
fracture to his right lower limb which has
led, according to CMO, to the loss of
earning
capacity
by
20%
and
the
compensation commissioner opined this
disability for the claimant would lead to
the inference of a 100% functional
disability-In
the
case
of
workmen
dedicated to a specific kind of a job like
driver, a carpenter or may be a tailor, an
injury causing whatever percentage of
permanent disablement, if it prevents the
workman from doing the job that he had
been doing before the accident, would
entitle him to claim 100% loss of earning
capacity under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the
Act 1923-As per thumb marked statement
he claims Rs. 2000/-per month salary but
in his examination in chief, the claimant
stated about salary of Rs. 4000/-per
month-he
has
denied
his
thumb
impression on the document-Thus, the
Compensation Commissioner concluding
that the claimant's wages have to be
determined in accordance with those
payable to a driver under the Minimum
Wages Act,1948 can hardly be flawed.
(Para 1 to 50)

B. In arriving at the quantification of
compensation, we must be guided by the
well-settled principle that compensation
can be granted both on account of
permanent disability as well as loss of
future earnings, because one head relates
to the impairment of the person's capacity