High Court of Allahabad

Vaseem Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation: 2023 AHC 219818)

MANU/UP/3765/2023

20.11.2023

Constitution

As per Article 300A of the Constitution, no one shall be deprived of his property except in accordance with law.

The present revision has been filed challenging the order whereby the motorcycle of the revisionist has been confiscated on the ground that on inspection of the motorcycle 200 grams of beef was recovered from the bags. The revisionist was charged under Sections 3, 5A and 8 of the Cow Slaughter Act. The Counsel for the revisionist argued that that the confiscation of the vehicle is contrary to Article 300A of the Constitution of India as it is not the proper exercise of power.

The Court is of the opinion that in order to attract the power of confiscation it is important to establish that the vehicle on which the beef was being carried violated the provisions of the Act. It is essential to note that for transportation of cow, bull or bullock, specific rules for issuance of permit are prescribed. However, the transportation of the cow, bull or bullock, within the State of Uttar Pradesh does not require any permit as has been held in the case of Ashfaq Ahmad vs State of UP and Another.

Moreover, Article 300A of the Constitution of India prescribes that no one shall be deprived of his property except in accordance with law. The 'law' should be a law framed by the Legislature. Thus, to deprive a person of his property it is essential that the Act framed by the Legislature prescribes for power of confiscation and subject to any limitations prescribed therein.

The Court held that the power of confiscation has been exercised without any authority and misreading of certain sections of the Act and so, the confiscation order is liable to be quashed. It was directed that the property of the revisionist be released upon establishment of ownership. Revision allowed.

Tags : Confiscation Article 300A Legislature

Share :