The owner of a goods carrier seized with two bullocks in Mirzapur is to be paid ₹40,000 for every month he was kept off the road, the Allahabad High Court has ordered, quashing vehicle confiscation under Cow Slaughter Act as resting on guesswork about a border district.
Prayagraj: Confiscation of a DCM Eicher goods vehicle under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 has been set aside by the Allahabad High Court, which found no evidence that the two bullocks found in it were being taken out of the State for slaughter. The State must compensate the owner at ₹40,000 a month from the date of seizure in September 2023 till the vehicle is actually returned, a sum that works out to roughly ₹15 lakh up to the date of the judgment; the orders of the District Magistrate, Mirzapur and the Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division stand set aside [Tej Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh & 4 Others].
Justice Sandeep Jain also awarded ₹25,000 for mental agony and harassment, and left it open to the State Government to hold a departmental inquiry and recover the amount from the officers found responsible for what the Court called a wholly illegal and arbitrary confiscation.
Why a border district proves nothing
Examining Sections 5, 5-A and 5-B of the Act and Rule 16 of the 1964 Rules, the Court noted that a permit is needed only when cows or their progeny are taken from a place in Uttar Pradesh to a place outside the State. The vehicle was admittedly intercepted inside Mirzapur district. Relying on Saurabh Bajaj v. State of Chhattisgarh and its own rulings in Kaliya, Mohd. Shakib and Munib, the Court held:
“The existence of an international or inter-State boundary by itself cannot constitute proof of illegal transportation. Unless there exists positive and cogent evidence indicating that the destination of the vehicle was outside the State of Uttar Pradesh or that the transportation was intended for slaughter, no such presumption can legally be drawn merely because the vehicle happened to be intercepted in a border district.”
No statement of the driver, document or independent witness pointed to West Bengal. The case diary also showed that the bullocks were never examined by a veterinary doctor, so the finding of cruel transport under Section 5-B had no basis. Since no beef or remains were recovered, the statutory presumption was never triggered and the burden never shifted to the owner.
The seizure and the confiscation orders
The petitioner, Tej Prakash, is the registered owner of the transport vehicle, which police of Police Station Vindhyachal, Mirzapur seized on 18 September 2023 while it was carrying two bullocks. An FIR (Case Crime No. 165 of 2023) was registered under Sections 3, 5-A and 8 of the 1955 Act, Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Sections 419 and 420 IPC, alleging that the animals were being taken to West Bengal for slaughter.
The District Magistrate, Mirzapur ordered confiscation of the vehicle on 22 November 2024, holding that the bullocks were being transported cruelly and that the vehicle was being used to smuggle animals. The Commissioner dismissed his appeal on 21 May 2026, recording, contrary to the seizure record, that ten cows and their progeny had been found in the vehicle.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the vehicle was his only source of livelihood, bought on a loan with monthly instalments of ₹27,709, and that the confiscation rested on presumptions. The State, through the AGA, maintained that the animals were being taken to West Bengal for slaughter and unlawful gain.
“Viewed from any angle, this Court finds that the confiscation proceedings suffer from patent illegality, complete non-application of mind and misinterpretation of the statutory provisions.”
Compensation for a lost livelihood
Pointing to the loan account statement and the penal interest that followed missed instalments, the Court said Article 21 protects the right to livelihood and relied on Nilabati Behera, Sube Singh and Indibily Creative to award public law compensation:
“It is apparent that whenever the instrumentalities of the State, by arbitrary and illegal exercise of statutory powers, deprive a citizen of his legitimate means of earning his livelihood, the constitutional courts are fully empowered to award compensation in exercise of their public law jurisdiction.”
The vehicle is to be released within a week of production of a certified copy of the judgment, if it is not needed in any other case. The compensation at ₹40,000 a month and the ₹25,000 lump sum are to be paid within a month, failing which simple interest at 8% a year will run from the date of the order.
The ruling concerns only the confiscation of the vehicle. The criminal case arising from the FIR remains a separate proceeding, and the allegations in it are yet to be tested at trial; the owner is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
What the ruling means for transporters
Confiscation of transport vehicles under Section 5-A(7) of the 1955 Act is a frequent and drastic step, often taken on the assumption that cattle found near the State’s borders are bound for slaughter elsewhere. The judgment makes clear that confiscation needs evidence of inter-State transport or slaughter, not inference from geography, and that the veterinary record matters when cruelty is alleged.
By fixing a monthly rate of compensation that runs until the vehicle is returned, and by allowing recovery from responsible officers, the Court has also attached a real cost to unlawful confiscation, a signal likely to be cited by transporters whose vehicles remain locked in similar proceedings.
Case Title: Tej Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh & 4 Others
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 22141 of 2026
Bench: Justice Sandeep Jain, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Date of Judgment: November 3, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Ashish Jaiswal and Sushil Kumar Mishra for the petitioner; AGA for the State
