Allahabad High Court
PYARI DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ABDUL SHAHID
Holding
The confiscation of the vehicle without evidence and prior to the applicable notification violates the petitioner's constitutional right to property and is therefore unlawful.
Summary
The revision petition filed by Pyari Devi challenged the District Magistrate's order confiscating her diesel pick‑up (Reg. No. BR‑45 GA‑9178) under Section 5(A)(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Cow Slaughter Act. The petitioner argued that no offence was established, the vehicle was her sole means of livelihood, and the confiscation was made without any evidence. The State contended that a government notification dated 15‑Oct‑2024 gave exclusive jurisdiction to the Divisional Commissioner, but the alleged incident occurred on 2‑Dec‑2023, before the notification. The Court found that the only material was a confession in the FIR, no oral or documentary proof of the offence, and that the confiscation infringed the petitioner's constitutional right to property under Article 300A. Consequently, the order was set aside, the revision was allowed, and the vehicle was ordered to be released.
Issues considered
- Whether the confiscation of the vehicle under the U.P. Cow Slaughter Act was justified in the absence of evidence of an offence.
- Whether the 15‑Oct‑2024 notification limiting jurisdiction to the Divisional Commissioner applies to an incident that occurred on 2‑Dec‑2023.
- Whether the confiscation violates the petitioner's constitutional right to property under Article 300A.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 300A
- U.P. Cow Slaughter Act — s. 5(A)(7), 5(ka)
Subjects
- vehicle confiscation
- property right
- U.P. Cow Slaughter Act
- revision petition
- constitutional law
- Article 300A
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5041 of 2025
Pyari Devi
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Kamlesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.
3. The instant criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated
07.08.2024 passed by District Magistrate, Chandauli in Case No. 389 of 2024
(Computerized No. D202414180000389) (State Versus Pyari Devi and another), under
section 5(ka) of U.P. Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Naugarh, District Chandauli.
4. Vide impugned order, learned District Magistrate has passed an order confiscating
the vehicle i.e. Pick-up bearing Registration No. BR-45 GA-9178, under section
5(A)(7) of the aforesaid Act.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that no offence under the U.P.
Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act is made out against the revisionist. The revisionist is
the owner of vehicle No. BR-45 GA-9178. The vehicle runs on diesel. It is submitted
that the petitioner was earning his livelihood by running the said vehicle and has no
other means of survival; hence, the vehicle in question is his sole means of earning.
6. 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).
7. 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. 5041 of 2025
2
notification, the Divisional Commissioner is having only the jurisdiction.
8. From perusal of the record reflects that the date of incident is 02.12.2023 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.
9. 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 District Magistrate was the first information report which discloses the
confession of the revisionist.
10. 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.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion the impugned order of the learned District
Magistrate, Ballia dated 07.08.2024, cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside.
12. The revision succeeds and is allowed.
13. Let vehicle bearing Registration No. BR-45 GA-9178, be released in favour of the
revisionist, if there is no other legal impediment.
February 18, 2026
K.K. Maurya
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…