Cow Slaughter Act | Owner Travelling In Vehicle Carrying 80 Kg Beef Can't Escape Confiscation By Pleading Ignorance: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that the owner of a vehicle who was himself travelling in it when beef was recovered cannot resist confiscation under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 by pleading that the meat belonged to passengers who had hired the vehicle. It held that once the seized meat is confirmed to be beef by an authorised laboratory, the presumption...
The Allahabad High Court has held that the owner of a vehicle who was himself travelling in it when beef was recovered cannot resist confiscation under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 by pleading that the meat belonged to passengers who had hired the vehicle.
It held that once the seized meat is confirmed to be beef by an authorised laboratory, the presumption under Section 5-A(10) of the Act is attracted against him, and it is for him to displace it by cogent evidence.
Section 5-A(6) of the Act requires the driver, operator and owner of a conveyance confirmed to be related to beef to be charged with the offence, unless it is proved that some other person used the vehicle without their knowledge and despite all precautions. Section 5-A(7) provides for confiscation of a vehicle used to transport beef in violation of the Act.
Justice Sandeep Jain held,
“Since 80 kilograms of beef has been found in the vehicle of the petitioner, there is a legal presumption against him that he has slaughtered the cow for obtaining its meat, which the petitioner has not been able to rebut by leading cogent evidence to the contrary.”
The petitioner's Bajaj auto was stopped at Khalilabad, Santkabir Nagar on 29.03.2025 on an informer's information. About 80 kilograms of beef in four sacks was recovered, along with a knife each from the petitioner and Faiyyaz, both of whom were travelling in the vehicle, and an FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 259 of 2025 under Sections 3/5-A/8 of the Act of 1955 and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
The District Magistrate, Santkabir Nagar confiscated the vehicle in favour of the State government by order dated 30.6.2025, and the petitioner's revision under Section 5-A(8) was dismissed by the Commissioner, Basti Division on 27.4.2026.
Challenging both orders in writ, the petitioner pleaded that the auto had been purchased on 18.3.2025 to earn a livelihood by carrying passengers on fare, that he had employed a driver for it. It was argued that three passengers who had taken it on hire were carrying the meat without his consent. It was argued that in the absence of mens rea or collusion the vehicle could not be confiscated.
The AGA submitted that the petitioner was arrested on the spot and had not rebutted the presumption under Section 5-A(10).
The Court found from the case diary that the petitioner was himself travelling in the vehicle when it was seized, and that his plea of joint possession by three hirers was unsupported by any evidence.
“The petitioner could have very well examined those persons to prove that they were allegedly transporting the beef in his vehicle, without his knowledge, but the petitioner has not examined those persons.”
Noting that the forensic science laboratory had confirmed the recovered meat to be beef, the Court held that the presumption under Section 5-A(10) stood attracted and unrebutted, and the authorities below had not erred in ordering confiscation.
The writ petition was dismissed and the orders dated 30.6.2025 and 27.4.2026 were affirmed.
Case Title: Mohammad Jalaluddin vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 757
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 757