ASIF Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned order dated 29.3.2010 passed by Incharge Special Judicial Magistrate, (C.B.I.), Ghaziabad (Annexure No. 3) as well as the order dated 17.4.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Ghaziabad in criminal revision No. 87 of 2010(Annexure No. 4).

(2.) It appears that twelve cows and four calves were seized from the Truck No. RJ 31-L/0272 by the police of police station Masoori, district Ghaziabad, in connection with the crime No. 149 of 2010 under Section 5A of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act of 1955') and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (in short 'the Act of 1960'). The Petitioners Asif and Illiyas claimed ownership of the aforesaid cows and calves and moved an application for their release but the learned Magistrate rejected the release application on the ground that the aforesaid catties were being transported without any valid permit and as such they were liable to be confiscated in accordance with Rule 16(3) of the Rules framed under the Act of 1955. The Petitioners then preferred, Asif and Anr. v. State of U.P. criminal revision No. 87/2010 The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Ghaziabad found no substance in the revision and dismissed the same vide the judgment and order dated 17.4.2010. The present writ petition has been filed to impugn the aforesaid orders.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that according to Section 5A of the Act of 1955 no permit was required for transportation of a cow or its progeny from one place to another within the Uttar Pradesh. The permit was required when the transportation was to be made from any place within the State to any place outside the State, therefore, no breach of Section 5A of the Act of 1955 and the aforesaid Rule 16(3) was committed and as such the question of confiscation of the catties does not arise. In reply thereof the learned AGA submitted that there was even violation of the Act of 1960, therefore, the release is not proper.