The Allahabad High Court has quashed the confiscation of a transport vehicle under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, holding that such action cannot be sustained in the absence of conclusive proof that the seized material was “beef.”
The case arose from an FIR alleging that the petitioner’s vehicle was transporting beef of five cows. Acting on this allegation, the District Magistrate, Baghpat ordered confiscation of the vehicle under Section 5-A of the Act, a decision later affirmed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division. The petitioner challenged both orders before the High Court.
Before the Court, it was argued that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof, as the veterinary examination report only indicated that the seized meat was “suspected” to be of cow or its progeny. Crucially, no confirmatory report from an authorised laboratory was placed on record to establish that the meat was indeed beef, which is a statutory requirement under the Act. Even the State conceded that there was no conclusive evidence regarding the origin of the meat.
The Court examined the statutory scheme and emphasised that under Sections 2(a), 5 and 5-A of the Act, transportation of “beef” is prohibited, and confiscation of a vehicle can only follow once it is established that the seized material answers the definition of beef. In the absence of such definitive proof, the confiscation proceedings were held to be arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to law.
Taking note of the prolonged deprivation suffered by the petitioner whose vehicle was a source of livelihood and had remained seized for over 18 months, Justice Sandeep Jain held that the State’s actions resulted in serious economic loss and violation of fundamental rights. Relying on principles of public law compensation, the Court awarded ₹2 lakh as damages to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders of the District Magistrate and the Commissioner, directed the State to pay compensation within seven days, and ordered release of the vehicle within three days. The State was also granted liberty to recover the compensation amount from responsible officials in accordance with law.
Appearances:
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gurfan Ali
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A
