Allahabad High Court
MRS. MUSTAKEEM BEGUMversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The owner must be afforded an opportunity to redeem the seized vehicle on deposit of its value or adequate security, and the impugned orders are not set aside but the petitioner is directed to apply for release.
Summary
The petitioner, Mrs. Mustakeem Begum, challenged the confiscation and auction of her vehicle ordered by the District Magistrate under the U.P. Cow Slaughter Prevention Act and related IPC provisions, alleging that the vehicle was falsely implicated in a criminal case. The High Court noted that the factual disputes regarding the alleged illegal transport of cattle were not before it, but emphasized that the owner’s right to redeem the seized vehicle upon furnishing adequate security had not been afforded. It held that both the lower courts erred by not providing the petitioner an opportunity to deposit the vehicle’s value or otherwise secure its release. Rather than setting aside the impugned orders, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the District Magistrate within two weeks seeking release of the vehicle on security, with a decision to be rendered within a month. The Court further ordered that no coercive action be taken against the vehicle pending such application, and disposed of the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the confiscation and auction orders passed by the District Magistrate can be set aside on the ground of procedural irregularity.
- Whether the owner of a seized vehicle is entitled to redemption upon deposit of its value or furnishing of adequate security under the applicable statutes.
Legislation cited
- Animal Cruelty Act
- Indian Penal Code — s. 279, 427
- U.P. Cow Slaughter Prevention Act, 1955 — s. 5(a)
Subjects
- Article 227
- vehicle seizure
- confiscation
- redemption
- security deposit
- Cow Slaughter Act
- IPC
- High Court
- criminal revision
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2746 of 2025
Mrs. Mustakeem Begum
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Puneet Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri R.K. Singh, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
filed with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 30.01.2025, in
criminal revision no. 70/2024, passed by the learned court of Session
Judge, Hathras and order 19.07.2021, in case no.-00440/2021,
Computerized Case Number:-D202118340000440, (U.P. Government vs.
Mustakim Begum), Under Section:- 5 (a) of U.P. Cow Slaughter
Prevention Act 1955, passed by learned Court of District Magistrate,
Mandal - Aligarh, District-Aligarh. A further prayer has also been made
to issue direction to concerned authority to release the vehicle having
TATA PIKUP no.- UP 86 T 5519 in favour of the petitioner forthwith.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that her vehicle was
seized in Case Crime No. 279 of 2020, under Sections 279, 427 IPC, at
Police Station Hasayan, District Hathras. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that her vehicle has been falsely implicated in the
aforesaid case. The petitioner, being the registered owner of the vehicle,
appeared before the Court of the District Magistrate, Mandal Aligarh,
District Aligarh, where confiscation proceedings in case no.-
00440/2 (State vs. Mustakim Begum) were pending. He further submitted
her objection stating that she is the registered owner of the vehicle and
that the vehicle was duly insured and had a valid permit. Despite this, an
order for confiscation and auction of the vehicle was passed by the
A227 No. 2746 of 2025
2
District Magistrate on 19.7.2021.
4. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.7.2021, the petitioner filed Criminal
Revision No.70 of 2024. The said criminal revision was also dismissed on
30.1.2025, upholding the findings recorded by the District Magistrate in
the order dated 19.7.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that both the courts have committed gross illegality in denying
the release of the petitioner's vehicle in his favour.
5. Learned AGA for the State has submitted that the petitioner's vehicle
was seized while it was involved in the illegal transportation of govansh
in violation of the provisions of the Cow Slaughter Act, and that the order
of confiscation as well as the auction of the vehicle does not suffer from
any infirmity.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available
on record.
7. This Court will not enter into the merits of the facts upon which the
FIR against the petitioner was registered under the provisions of the IPC
as well as Cow Slaughter Act and the Animal Cruelty Act, as those
involve disputed questions of fact. No substantial ground has been shown
by the petitioner to establish that his vehicle was falsely implicated by the
police authorities. However, this Court is of the view that confiscation of
the vehicle should not result in deprivation of the owner's right to receive
the said vehicle upon furnishing adequate security.
8. This Court further finds that both courts have failed to consider the
settled legal position that the owner must be afforded an opportunity to
redeem the vehicle on deposit of its value or furnishing of adequate
security as may be determined by the competent authority such as the
RTO. In the present case, it is evident that no such opportunity was
afforded to the petitioner. The impugned order reflects non-application of
mind and failure to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law.
9. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose
would be served in setting aside the impugned orders at this stage,
inasmuch as the ends of justice would be adequately met by permitting
A227 No. 2746 of 2025
3
the petitioner to approach before District Magistrate, Mandal Aligarh,
District Aligarh by submitting appropriate application seeking
release/redemption of the vehicle. Accordingly, without setting aside the
impugned orders, it is provided that in case the petitioner files an
appropriate application before the concerned District Magistrate within a
period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and
decided in accordance with observations made hereinabove.
10. The concerned District Magistrate shall, while deciding such
application, specifically consider the claim of the petitioner for release of
the vehicle on deposit of its value, as may be determined by the RTO. The
aforesaid exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within a
period of one month from the date of filing of such application. It is
further provided that till the aforesaid period, or till the decision of the
application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken in
respect of the vehicle in question.
11. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
May 6, 2026
KJ
Digitally signed by :-
KAMARJAHAN ANSARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…