Allahabad High Court
SARITA DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that while the confiscation order need not be set aside, the petitioner must be allowed to redeem the vehicle on deposit of its value or adequate security, which the lower courts failed to consider.
Summary
Sarita Devi, the registered owner of a vehicle seized in a cow‑slaughter case, filed a petition under Article 227 seeking to set aside the District Magistrate’s order confiscating the vehicle and the subsequent criminal revision order. The petitioner claimed the vehicle was falsely implicated and that he was denied an opportunity to redeem it by depositing its value or providing security. The State argued the seizure was lawful under the Cow Slaughter Act. The High Court declined to examine the factual dispute but held that the owner must be given a chance to recover the vehicle on adequate security, a right denied by the lower courts. Instead of setting aside the orders, the Court directed the District Magistrate to entertain an application for release within two weeks and to decide it expeditiously, staying any coercive action pending. The petition was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- What is the legal requirement for an owner to be afforded an opportunity to redeem a confiscated vehicle under the Cow Slaughter Act and related statutes?
- Whether the District Magistrate’s confiscation order and the subsequent criminal revision order should be set aside for failing to provide such an opportunity.
Legislation cited
- Animal Cruelty Act — s. 11
- Arms Act — s. 25, 4
- Constitution of India — s. Article 227
- Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act — s. 3, 5A, 5B, 8
Subjects
- Article 227
- vehicle confiscation
- redemption of property
- security deposit
- Cow Slaughter Act
- criminal revision
- property rights
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8562 of 2025
Sarita Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohd Muqeem Ansari, Mohd. Fazal
Ansari, Mohd. Mobin Ansari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard Mohd. Mobin Ansari, 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 19.10.2024 passed by
District Magistrate Chandauli in Case Crime No. 315 of 2023 State versus
Vinod Kumar Jaiswal, Under Sections- 3/5A/5B/8 Prevention of Cow
Slaughter Act and 11 Animal Cruelty Act & 4/25 Arms Act Police Station -
Chandauli, District Chandauli and order dated 07.05.2025 passed by Session
Judge Chandauli in criminal revision no. 40 of 2025 (Sarita Devi versus
State of U.P.). A further prayer has also been made to issue direction to
concerned authority to release the vehicle having Registration No. UP 67
BT0258 in favor of the petitioner forthwith.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his vehicle was
seized in Case Crime No. 0315 of 2023, under Sections 3/5A/5B/8 of the
Cow Slaughter Act at Police Station Chandauli, District Chandauli. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that his vehicle has been falsely
implicated in the aforesaid case, whereas it was not involved in the
transportation of cows. The petitioner, being the registered owner of the
vehicle, moved an application for release of his vehicle before the Court of
the District Magistrate, Chandauli, where confiscation proceedings in Case
No. 392 of 2024 (State vs. Vinod Kumar Jaiswal) were pending. He
submitted his objection stating that he 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 of the vehicle, with a direction to the S.H.O. for
auctioning the same was passed by the District Magistrate on 19.10.2024.
A227 No. 8562 of 2025
2
4. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.10.2024, the petitioner filed Criminal
Revision No. 40 of 2025 (Sarita Devi versus State of U.P.). The said
criminal revision was also dismissed on 7.5.2025, upholding the findings
recorded by the District Magistrate in the order dated 19.10.2025. 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 Cow Slaughter
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 the petitioner to
approach before District Magistrate, Chandauli 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
A227 No. 8562 of 2025
3
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.
May 5, 2026
Ujjawal
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
UJJAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…