VASEEM AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

INTRODUCTION

The case of Vaseem Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and Another was with regards to the proper interpretation and application of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. The concern is around the matters of transportation of beef within and outside the state of Uttar Pradesh. It also dealt with the proper authority for the seizure of any vehicle used for the transportation of such things under the jurisdiction of the state. The case is a criminal revision case in the High Court of Allahabad that primarily led through the question of authority to confiscate the vehicle, where the previous decision of the District Magistrate was to pass an order for the seizure of the vehicle that was used for transportation of beef with regards to this particular case.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. An FIR was filed against the revisionist as in this case under the Section 8, Section 5, and Section 3 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.
2. Four persons in two motorcycles ran away leaving their motorcycles back on the act of apprehension. By the inspection of the left behind motorcycles, a bag was discovered with one quintal 200 grams of beef in it.
3. The owner of the motorcycle was traced to be the revisionist and alleged to have committed the offence under the U.P. prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 as for the transportation of beef.
4. It was further recorded in the FIR that the beef was being transported from Ajua to be sold in Afoi (Both of the place mentioned were within the state of Uttar Pradesh)
5. The motorcycles were seized and were declared as the case property as according to the Section 5A (7) of the Cow Slaughter Act. According that particular Section, any vehicle used for the transportation of beef or its progeny in violation to the provisions of the Act shall be confiscated at the order of the District Magistrate or the Commissioner.
6. They were seized according to the order passed by the District Magistrate as the revisionist was neither abled to prove that the vehicle seized was not used for the transportation of the beef.
7. The revisionist claiming to be the owner of the vehicle moved an application for the release of the vehicle at the pendency of the case.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the confiscation of the motor cycles was according to the proper exercise of power?
2. Whether the transportation of beef within the state was in violation of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955?

CONTENTIONS OF THE REVISIONIST

1. The counsel who appeared for the revisionist upheld that confiscation of the motor cycles of the revisionist was in contrary to the Cow Slaughter Act and also violated the Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India.
2. The revisionist further contended that the act of confiscation was not a proper exercise of the power and pleaded the order to be quashed.
3. The revisionist asserted that according to the Section 2(a) of the Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, beef only refers to the flesh of cows and excluded as such even when they are contained in sealed containers and imported as such into Uttar Pradesh.
4. The revisionist upheld the Section 5A (1) of The Act which provided that only what is punishable under the Act is transportation of the beef from any place within the state to any place outside the State.
5. The revisionist further emphasized on the Section 5A (11) which provided that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be used in the absence of any provision of the Act or any Rules being silent on search, acquisition, disposal and seizure.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The learned A.G.A. for the state turned strong over for the justification of the order and argued that as per the recordings of the report, the alleged motorcycle was used for the transportation of beef and it was sternly rightly exercised by the District Magistrate as he was empowered to do so according to Section 5A (7) of the Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.

JUDGEMENT

The High Court allowed the revision of the initial order and concerned that the property made as case property is directed to be released on the revisionist proving or establishing his ownership over the aforesaid property and on furnishing a bond for Rs. 5,000. The Hon’ble upheld that the power of confiscation has been exercised without a proper authority of law and due to the misreading of the Section 5A (7) of the Cow Slaughter Act and so that the confiscation order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. 

It was made clear that any vehicle can be confiscated with respect to the Act only in terms of the mandate of Rule 7 of Section 5A. It was essential to prove that the transportation was done in violation to the Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. In few cases, such transportation is bound to be authorised in certain cases by the issuance of permit, as such permit is also not required for transportation of beef within the state of Uttar Pradesh.

With regards to the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure as per the Section 5A (11) of the Cows Slaughter Act, 1955, those rules also remain silent over the confiscation of the property and also any property according to the former Act refers to only those property which is with the custody of the criminal court and only after the enquiry or trial is concluded. In the present case the trial was in continuance. The alleged offence on the revisionist was neither regulated nor restrained.

CONCLUSION

     In conclusion, this case of Vaseem Ahmad v State of U.P. and Another proved to be an explanatory decision over the issue of transportation of beef which was not explicitly regulated by the provisions of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. And the exercise of power is said to be proper only if it is provided as according to the law of the land without any improper interpretations over it.

REFERENCE

1. https://indiankanoon.org/
2.  https://lawbeat.in/

WRITTEN BY MAGIZHINI M AN INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin