(Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.)
Pharuk _________________________________________ Appellant;
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh ____________________________ Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 17594 of 2025]§, decided on May 18, 2026
The Order of the Court was delivered by
Dipankar Datta, J.:—
1. Leave granted.
2. Order dated 7th January, 2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad1 is assailed before us, whereby a petition of the appellant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed. The petition sought setting aside of an order2 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi in its criminal revisional jurisdiction3. In the revision, an order4 of the District Magistrate, Jhansi, under sub-section 7 of section 5A of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 19555 was challenged, whereby the appellant’s application for release of his vehicle stood dismissed.
3. The brief facts leading to the petition are these: A ten-wheeler container truck/vehicle bearing registration no. MP 06 HC 13536 was found stranded on the side of Bundeli Dhaba Kanpur Highway, on 4th July, 2022. A constable, while patrolling, found the offending vehicle and smelt something foul coming from it. The information was relayed and a senior inspector was called. Upon opening the driver cabin, nobody was found inside. Thereafter, with the help of a crane, the container was opened in presence of a veterinary doctor. Inside the container, several cow progenies were found; most were dead while a few were alive. Accordingly, a First Information Report came to be registered with P.S. Sipri, District Jhansi under Sections 3, 5 and 8 of the 1955 Act as well as under section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932.
4. Appellant was charged and subsequently convicted on 4th March, 2024 under Sections 3 and 5-A read with Section 8 of the 1955 Act by the Additional Sessions Judge., Jhansi and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment. The charge against the appellant was that he was the owner of the offending vehicle from which the progenies were found. Appeal against conviction by the appellant herein is pending before the High Court. Pending appeal, the execution of sentence-order has been suspended and the appellant released on bail.
5. Appellant, after being convicted, applied to the District Magistrate, Division, Tehsil and District Jhansi, under Section 5A of the 1955 Act, seeking release of the offending vehicle. The application came to be rejected on the supposed ground that the owner of the offending vehicle was absconding till date as well as in view of seriousness of the offence. Appellant challenged this order before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi, which came to be rejected. Challenge thereagainst before the High Court was also rejected by the order impugned herein.
6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as for the respondent-State and perused the affidavit in reply.
7. The High Court, while accepting the preliminary argument by the counsel for the State, held against the appellant that there were no documents which would show that the offending vehicle in question pertains to the appellant.
8. It is not disputed that the appellant stands convicted primarily on the ground of ownership of the offending vehicle being attributed to him. This has not been denied in the reply filed before us. Thus, it is nobody’s case that during the trial, ownership of the offending vehicle was not proved by the prosecution. In absence thereof, the conviction ostensibly could not stand.
9. As water inevitably descends from a waterfall, it follows, by a natural and logical sequence of reasoning, that only after the prosecution having proved — beyond reasonable doubt — that the offending vehicle was owned by the appellant, that he came to be convicted. That apart, the appellant has placed before us typed copies of the registration certificate, fitness certificate and tourist permit of the offending vehicle, all of which exhibit the appellant’s name.
10. Ideally, the trial judge ought to have made an order under section 352 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19737 regarding disposal of the offending vehicle at the time rending the final judgment of conviction and sentence. Despite an application by the appellant to the appropriate authority under the 1955 Act, the offending vehicle has not been released. Be that as it may, it stands proved that the offending vehicle was indeed owned by the appellant. In such circumstances, we allow the appeal and direct release of the vehicle bearing No. MP 06 HC 1353, within 2 months, on such terms as the District Magistrate may deem fit.
11. The appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. Parties to bear their own costs.
12. Since the High Court is presently seized of the appeal against conviction of the appellant, he shall be barred from disowning the vehicle in question in course of its consideration.
———
1 High Court
2 dated 4th September, 2024
3 Criminal Revision No. 168 of 2023
4 dated 28th June, 2023
5 the 1955 Act
6 offending vehicle
7 CrPC
§ 2026 INSC 518
