LUCKNOW: In a significant ruling in a case involving alleged transportation of cow meat, the Allahabad High Court imposed a fine of Rs 2 lakh on the Uttar Pradesh government, directing it to pay compensation to a man whose vehicle was seized in 2024.
The court ordered that the compensation be paid within seven days, noting that there was no conclusive evidence to establish that the seized meat was cow meat. It said the amount was meant to cover the petitioner’s economic loss and compensate for the “arbitrary action of the State.”
The order was passed by a single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep Jain while hearing a writ petition filed by Mohammad Chand. Chand had challenged the Baghpat District Magistrate’s order to seize his vehicle under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, alleging that he was transporting cow meat.
The Meerut Divisional Commissioner had earlier upheld the District Magistrate’s order and dismissed Chand’s appeal in November 2024.
According to the petition, Baghpat Police registered an FIR against Chand and another individual, Saddam, on October 18, 2024, claiming that meat was recovered from Chand’s vehicle during a checking drive. Police claimed they arrested the persons travelling in the vehicle after a brief shootout, leading to additional charges under Section 109 (attempt to murder) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, along with provisions of the Cow Slaughter Act and the Arms Act.
The petitioner argued that a veterinary report did not conclusively determine the origin of the seized meat, and that the burden of proof lay with the prosecution. He contended that without definitive evidence, the vehicle could not be confiscated.
The Additional Government Advocate submitted that the meat examination report stated that the seized meat was "suspected" to be of a cow or its progeny. He, however, admitted there was no documentary evidence on record to conclusively prove it.
After hearing both sides, the court observed that the veterinary examiner at Baghpat hospital was uncertain about the origin of the meat. The examiner had sought a further confirmatory diagnosis, the results of which were not available on record.
The court noted that under the law, a confirmed laboratory report is mandatory to initiate proceedings under the cow slaughter prohibition provisions. In the absence of such confirmation, it held that the seizure of the vehicle was unjustified.
“It is evident that the examiner was not confident whether the seized meat was beef or not, as such, without conclusively proving that the seized meat was beef, the vehicle of the petitioner could not have been confiscated in the case,” said the court.
Calling the action of the authorities “arbitrary, illegal and unwarranted".
“It is apparent that due to illegal and arbitrary action of the functionaries of the State, the petitioner has suffered serious economic loss because the vehicle was a transport vehicle, which was the source of [his] livelihood…,” said the court order.
The bench directed the authorities to release the vehicle within three days and said, “A period of more than 18 months has elapsed since then. In the facts and circumstances of this case, for the economic loss/deprivation caused to the petitioner and to compensate for the arbitrary action of the State, it would be appropriate to award damages of Rs 2 lakh to the petitioner.”
The court also quashed the Baghpat DM’s and Meerut Divisional Commissioner’s orders in connection.
Additionally, the court said the state government may recover the compensation amount from the officials responsible, including the Divisional Commissioner, Meerut division; Baghpat District Magistrate, and the Station House Officer of Khakherha police station in Baghpat.