Allahabad High Court
MOHAMMAD BABLOOversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- ABDUL SHAHID
Holding
The order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate refusing release of the vehicle is set aside, and the vehicle is to be released to the revisionist.
Summary
The revisionist, owner of vehicle HR-45C-00547, challenged the magistrate's order refusing release of his seized vehicle, which was taken under the Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act and the U.P. Cow Slaughter Act on allegations of transporting cows. The magistrate dismissed the revisionist's application without evidentiary support, relying only on the FIR and a confession. The revisionist argued violation of his constitutional right to property under Article 300A and cited prior judgments. The State contended that a post‑incident notification gave exclusive jurisdiction to the Divisional Commissioner, but the court noted the incident pre‑dated the notification. The High Court found the magistrate's order unsustainable, set it aside, and ordered the vehicle's release, allowing the revision.
Issues considered
- Whether the seizure of the vehicle under the Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act and U.P. Cow Slaughter Act was justified in the absence of material evidence.
- Whether the notification dated 15‑10‑2024 conferring exclusive jurisdiction to the Divisional Commissioner applies to an incident that occurred on 20‑12‑2023.
- Whether the denial of release violates the revisionist's right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 300A
- Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act — s. 11(1)(d)
- U.P. Cow Slaughter Act — s. 5(B)
Subjects
- vehicle seizure
- animal cruelty
- cow slaughter
- right to property
- jurisdiction
- criminal revision
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1821 of 2024
Mohammad Babloo
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Mohd. Shahibe Alam, Shabista Parveen
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant revision has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 3.2.2024
passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Baghpat, arising out of Case
Crime No.364 of 2023, under section 11(1)(d) of Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act
and section 5(B) of the U.P. Cow Slaughter Act, P.S. Doghat, District Baghpat.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that the revisionist is owner of the vehicle
bearing No. HR-45C-00547, which was found to be involved in commission of
offence registered by the Police in Case Crime No.364 of 2023, under section 11(1)(d)
of Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act and section 5(B) of the U.P. Cow Slaughter Act,
P.S. Doghat, District Baghpat. The said vehicle was seized by the police with the
allegation of transportation of the cows. Thereafter, the revisionist moved an
application before the Magistrate for release of the vehicle, but vide order dated
3.2.2024, the Magistrate rejected the application of the revisionist. The vehicle is lying
in the police custody since 21.12.2023 which is causing inconvenience to the business
of the revisionist. He further contends that the vehicle was the only source of income
of his family because of seizure of the said vehicle, entire family is facing hardship.
4. Learned District Magistrate has passed the impugned order without any basis and
any evidence. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied on the law laid down by
this Court in Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. 7938 of 2023, decided on 24.7.2023) and in Roopchandra Nishad Vs.
State of U.P. and others (Criminal Revision No. 6781 of 2024, decided on
12.6.2025).
5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that no material has been
produced by the revisionist to substantiate aforesaid aspect of the matter. Learned
AGA relying on judgment of this Court in Nitesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and
others (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14242 of 2025) has submitted that a
notification has been issued on 15.10.2024 by the State Government, and as per said
CRLR No. 1821 of 2024
2
notification, the Divisional Commissioner is having only the jurisdiction.
6. From perusal of the record reflects that the date of incident is 20.12.2023 which is
prior to issuance of said notification dated 15.10.2024, hence when the alleged
occurrence took place, the said notification was even not in existence.
7. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that there is no oral or documentary
evidence regarding the said presumption. The only material available before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was the first information report which discloses the
confession of the revisionist.
8. Vehicle of the revisionist comes within the purview of property under the meaning
of Section 300A of the Constitution of India and confiscating the vehicle without any
reasonable basis amount to violation of the said right to property as provided by the
aforesaid Article i.e. 300A Constitution of India.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion the impugned order dated 3.2.2024 passed by
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Baghpat, cannot be sustained and is,
accordingly, set aside.
10. The revision succeeds and is allowed.
11. Let vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-45C-00547, be released in favour of the
revisionist, if there is no other legal impediment.
March 16, 2026
K.K. Maurya
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…