Court No. - 49
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3870 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S Sunrise Traders Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Pal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State as also perused the record.
The present petition has been directed against the order dated 06.10.2017, by which the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh has rejected the application filed by the applicant for release of the goods namely cow hides that had been detained in the aforesaid criminal case.
Learned counsel for the applicant claims to be the rightful owner of those goods on the strength of invoice and other documents pertaining to transportation of those goods. However, the learned court below has rejected the same on the reasoning that such release cannot be made in view of the provisions of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits provisions of Section 5A of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 are not applicable as the said provisions only place restrictions on or regulate movement/transportation of cow, bull or bullock. He submits that the regulation applies to movement of live animal only and not to cow hides that have been obtained from dead cow, bull and bullock.
It is then submitted that there is no presumption available in law and there is no basis or material to assume that the cow hides in question are of such animal as may have been slaughtered in contravention of the aforesaid Act.
On the contrary, it has been submitted that the invoice and other documents having been produced by the applicant, a presumption arises that cow hides in question had been obtained in accordance with law. The goods namely cow hide are also not goods whose trading is prohibited under any law.
Learned AGA on the other hand submits that the cow hides obtained from any cow, bull or bullock that may have been slaughtered would have to be prohibited and it would remain for the applicant to lead evidence to establish that such animal had not been slaughtered. In absence of such evidence having been led, release of the goods in question has been rightly refused.
Having considered the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, at present, it does appear that the Section 5(A) would not come into play inasmuch as other than the cow hides, no body part of any slaughtered animal was found being transported by the applicant. With respect to the cow hides, there appear to exist invoice document that have not been found to be forged or fabricated. Once the invoice document had been produced, the initial onus on the applicant, if any, to establish that he had not slaughtered any animal to obtain those goods, stood discharged. Also, there is no evidence of the goods being prohibited goods.
Consequently, at present, the applicant is entitled to release of the goods, namely cow hides, subject to the regular conditions as may be imposed by the learned court below, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Considering the above, the order dated 06.10.2017 is hereby set-aside and the matter is remitted to the learned court below to pass appropriate order regarding the release of goods on the terms and conditions as the learned Magistrate may impose, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
In view of the aforesaid observation, the present petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.8.2018 Lbm/-