Mere Carrying Of Meat By Itself Cannot Amount To Sale Or Transport Of Beef Unless There’s Sufficient Evidence: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court while granting bail to an accused has held that the mere carrying of meat by any person, by itself cannot amount to a sale or transport of beef or beef products unless there is sufficient evidence that the substance recovered is beef.

A Single Bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed, “The procedure prescribed under section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code has not been followed. The alleged recovery of substance has been made by police personnel. A case of false implication has been raised on behalf of the applicant. Learned AGA for the State has not shown any fact or circumstance which will amount to committing, abetting, or attempting an offence under section 5 of the Act No 1 of 1956. Even otherwise mere carrying of meat by any person, by itself cannot amount to sale or transport of beef or beef products unless it is shown by cogent and sufficient evidence that the substance recovered is beef. In the present case the prosecution has not demonstrated with cogent evidence that the substance recovered is beef or beef products. The maximum sentence imposed by section 5 read with section 8 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956 is ten years.”

The Bench said that no material circumstance has been shown to suggest that the applicant was selling or transporting or offering for sale or transport or cause to be sold or transported beef or beef products.

“No report of competent authority or authorised laboratory has been shown to demonstrate that the substance recovered is beef or beef product. There is no independent witness of recovery”, further said the Court.

Advocate Ajay Kumar Srivastava appeared for the applicant i.e., the accused while Government Advocate appeared for the State.

In this case, it was submitted by the counsel for the accused before the Court that he was falsely implicated, there was no independent witness of the recovery, and there was no allegation of slaughter against the accused. It was further submitted that the procedure for seizure as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code was not followed and there was no report that the meat recovered was beef.

The counsel contended that 30.5 kg of meat was recovered from the house of the accused and that he was a painter and was doing his job of painting in the house when the raid was conducted. It was also contended that no other evidence linked the accused with the alleged recovery and he was falsely implicated in the case as he had no criminal history.

The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel noted, “Learned AGA for the State has not shown that the applicant has been previously convicted under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956. … No material has been shown by learned AGA for the State to demonstrate that the applicant has slaughtered or cause to be slaughtered or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter a cow, bull or bullock in any place in Uttar Pradesh. The alleged act cannot be stated to come within the ambit of section 2(d) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956. There is no independent witness of the recovery. Mere possession of meat by itself cannot amount to committing, abetting, or attempting an offence under section 3 of the Act No. 1 of 1956. No report of competent authority or authorised laboratory has been shown to demonstrate that the meat recovered is beef. The maximum sentence imposed by section 3 read with section 8 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956 is ten years.”

The Court, therefore, held that the accused is not guilty under the provisions of the U.P. Cow Slaughter Act on the ground that the counsel for the State did not bring any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail and that it is not the case of the State that the applicant did not cooperate in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the bail plea.

Cause Title- Ibran @ Sheru v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC:117342)

Click here to read/download the Judgment