Vehicle transporting beef is liable to confiscation unless the owner proves absence of knowledge despite due precautions.

The petitioner was the registered owner of Bajaj Auto vehicle No. UP-53-LT-1687. On 29 March 2025, the vehicle was intercepted at Police Station Khalilabad, District Santkabir Nagar, while allegedly transporting approximately 80 kg of beef in four sacks. The petitioner and another person, Faiyyaz, were apprehended in the vehicle, and knives were allegedly recovered from them. An FIR was registered under Sections 3, 5-A and 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The District Magistrate issued a notice under Section 5-A(7) of the 1955 Act and, after considering the petitioner’s reply, confiscated the vehicle by order dated 30 June 2025. The Commissioner, Basti Division, dismissed the petitioner’s revision under Section 5-A(8) and affirmed the confiscation, while permitting release of the vehicle upon deposit of its market value. The petitioner challenged both orders under Article 226 of the Constitution, asserting that the vehicle had been hired by passengers and that the alleged transportation of beef occurred without his knowledge or consent.

1. Whether the confiscation of the petitioner’s vehicle under Section 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, was legally justified when beef was allegedly recovered from the vehicle?

2. Whether the statutory presumption under Section 5-A(10) of the 1955 Act was attracted against the petitioner and whether he had rebutted it by proving lack of knowledge, consent, or connivance?

3. Whether the orders of the District Magistrate and the revisional authority warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution?

The Court applied Sections 3, 5 and 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. Section 3 absolutely prohibits the slaughter of a cow, bull or bullock in Uttar Pradesh, while Section 5 prohibits the sale or transportation of beef or beef products, subject to the statutory exception for prescribed medicinal purposes and bona fide passengers in aircraft or railway trains.

Section 5-A(6) makes the driver, operator and owner connected with the transport liable unless it is proved that, despite taking precautions and without their knowledge, the vehicle was used by another person to commit the offence. Section 5-A(7) authorises seizure and confiscation of a vehicle used to transport beef or cattle in violation of the Act, and Section 5-A(10) creates a presumption that the accused committed, abetted or attempted the offence once the prosecution proves possession of beef and its confirmation by an authorised laboratory, unless the contrary is proved. Section 5-A(11) makes the Code of Criminal Procedure applicable where the Act and rules are silent.

The Court relied on the case diary and FIR, which recorded that the petitioner was present in the vehicle when approximately 80 kg of beef was recovered. The meat had been sent for laboratory analysis and was confirmed to be beef, thereby attracting the presumption under Section 5-A(10).

Although the petitioner claimed that passengers had hired the vehicle and transported the beef without his knowledge, he produced no evidence—such as testimony from the alleged passengers—or any other material to rebut the statutory presumption or establish that the vehicle had been used without his knowledge despite reasonable precautions. In view of the petitioner’s presence in the vehicle, the confirmed recovery of beef, and the absence of evidence rebutting the statutory liability under Section 5-A(6), the Court held that the authorities had validly ordered confiscation.

The writ petition was dismissed, and the District Magistrate’s order dated 30 June 2025 and the revisional order dated 27 April 2026 were affirmed.