Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has set aside the confiscation of a vehicle seized under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, holding that the authorities acted without evidence and based their decision entirely on assumptions.
A Bench of Justice Sandeep Jain described the confiscation proceedings as “patently illegal,” observing that they reflected a complete non-application of mind and a misinterpretation of the statutory provisions. Along with quashing the confiscation orders passed by the District Magistrate and upheld by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, the Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to compensate the petitioner for the unlawful seizure.
The Court ordered the State to pay the petitioner ₹20,000 per month from September 19, 2024—the date the vehicle was seized—until its release, in addition to ₹25,000 as compensation for mental agony, financial hardship and unnecessary harassment. The compensation currently amounts to nearly ₹4.75 lakh and will continue to increase until the vehicle is returned.
The case arose after police in Chandauli district intercepted the petitioner’s vehicle on September 19, 2024, alleging that bovine animals were being transported to Bihar for slaughter in violation of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. An FIR was registered under various provisions of the Act and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, following which confiscation proceedings were initiated.
The petitioner denied the allegations, maintaining that the animals were being transported within Uttar Pradesh and that there was no intention to take them to Bihar or for slaughter. He also alleged that the case was fabricated after the driver refused to pay an illegal bribe allegedly demanded by police personnel.
Examining the record, the High Court found no material to support the authorities’ claim that the animals were being transported across the state border for slaughter. The Court noted that the confiscation order relied solely on the assumption that, because Chandauli shares a border with Bihar, the destination must have been outside Uttar Pradesh.
Rejecting this reasoning, Justice Jain observed that the authorities failed to produce any statement from the driver, documentary evidence or independent witness to establish such an intention. The Court also pointed out that no beef or remains of slaughtered cattle were recovered from the vehicle.
The veterinary report further weakened the prosecution’s case. It recorded that the animals examined were healthy and contained no indication of injuries or cruel transportation, contradicting the State’s allegations.
The Court also clarified that a transport permit is required only when cows or their progeny are taken from Uttar Pradesh to another State, and not for transportation within Uttar Pradesh. It further held that the statutory presumption under Section 5-A(10) of the Act could not be invoked in the absence of foundational evidence such as the recovery of beef or cow remains.
Recognising that the seized vehicle was the petitioner’s sole source of livelihood and that its confiscation had caused severe financial hardship, the High Court held that the arbitrary State action violated his right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court also granted liberty to the State Government to initiate departmental proceedings against officials responsible for the illegal confiscation and recover the compensation amount from those found guilty, in accordance with law.
