The Allahabad High Court directed the District Magistrate, Sultanpur to release a vehicle confiscated under Section 5A(7) of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.

The bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed while noting that powers of the trial Court under Section 451 CrPC to dispose of property pending trial are not widely and properly used observed, “The power conferred under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. be exercised by the trial court with judicious mind and without any unnecessarily delay.”
The Petitioner, Chandra Shekhar Rajbhar approached the High Court with this Writ Petition seeking writ in the nature of certiorari and mandamus after his appeal was rejected by the Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya who upheld the decision of confiscation of vehicle by District Magistrate, Sultanpur.

As per the Counsel for the Petitioner, Advocate Manish Mani Sharma, an FIR was filed against the Petitioner on the ground that his vehicle is used to load the cow progenies which are taken to Bihar for slaughter.
On behalf of the Petitioner, it was argued that the impugned order is illegal as the DM exceeded his jurisdiction and passed the order on a wrong finding that the confiscated vehicle was used in cow slaughtering or in transportation of cow or its progeny which is perverse. He further argued that DM did not consider the evidence adduced.
It was argued that the arbitrary manner in which his vehicle was confiscated had affected his livelihood as the said vehicle was his main source of earnings.

He further submitted that the vehicle has been standing in an open yard in the Police Station for a long time and with time ultimately it will become junk and will not be of any use.
The Court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, AIR 2003 SC 638 and quoted, “…it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period…these powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. Are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month.”

The Court further mentioned the Allahabad High Court decision in Nand Vs. State of U.P., 1996 Law Suit (All) 423 and as per the Court, it was observed that pendency of the confiscation proceedings under Section 72 of the U. P. Excise Act is not a bar for release of the vehicle which is required for the trial under Section 60 of the U.P. Excise Act.
As per the Court, Section 457 of Cr.P.C. be followed promptly, so that the concerned Magistrate may take a prompt decision for the disposal of such properties and be released in favour of the entitled person of the said property.
The Court observed that merely keeping the article in the custody of the police in the open yard will not fulfil any purpose and that gives mental and financial torture to the owner of the said property which is also against the law and the principles of natural justice.

The Court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the decision of DM.
Cause Title: Chandra Shekhar Rajbhar v. The State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:24806)
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. J.P. Shukla, Adv. Manish Mani Sharma, Adv. Mohammad Sabir, Adv. Sudeep Kumar Srivastava
Respondent: A.G.A.-I Ashok Kumar Singh

Allahabad High CourtJustice Shamim Ahmed

Tanveer Kaur