UP cow slaughter act: Mere possession of meat not an offence, says Allahabad HC
3 min readExpress News Service
LUCKNOW: The Allahabad High Court claimed that merely possessing or carrying meat can’t amount to the sale or transport of beef or beef merchandise.
The courtroom seen that carrying meat cannot be a punishable offence beneath the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act till confirmed by cogent and sufficient proof that the substance recovered is beef.
“Mere possession of meat by itself cannot amount to committing, abetting or attempting an offence under Section 3 of Act No 1 of 1956. No report of the competent authority or authorised lab has been shown to demonstrate that the meat recovered is beef,” seen Justice Vikram D Chauhan whereas granting bail to the accused.
The High Court in its May 25 order had granted bail to the accused booked beneath the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act claiming that the prosecution could not produce cogent proof that the substance recovered from the possession of the accused was beef or beef product.
Accused Ibran was held in March, this yr in reference to the restoration of 30.5 kg of meat from his possession.
His counsel Ajay Kumar Srivastava had argued that the accused was a painter and dealing at a house when a raid was carried out.
Ibran’s lawyer further submitted that there was no proof to hyperlink his client with the alleged restoration of meat and that he was falsely implicated inside the case.
Passing the bail order, the High Court claimed that there was no supplies circumstance to suggest that the accused applicant was selling or transporting or offering available on the market or transport beef or beef merchandise.
LUCKNOW: The Allahabad High Court claimed that merely possessing or carrying meat can’t amount to the sale or transport of beef or beef merchandise.
The courtroom seen that carrying meat cannot be a punishable offence beneath the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act till confirmed by cogent and sufficient proof that the substance recovered is beef.
“Mere possession of meat by itself cannot amount to committing, abetting or attempting an offence under Section 3 of Act No 1 of 1956. No report of the competent authority or authorised lab has been shown to demonstrate that the meat recovered is beef,” seen Justice Vikram D Chauhan whereas granting bail to the accused.googletag.cmd.push(function() googletag.present(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); );
The High Court in its May 25 order had granted bail to the accused booked beneath the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act claiming that the prosecution could not produce cogent proof that the substance recovered from the possession of the accused was beef or beef product.
Accused Ibran was held in March, this yr in reference to the restoration of 30.5 kg of meat from his possession.
His counsel Ajay Kumar Srivastava had argued that the accused was a painter and dealing at a house when a raid was carried out.
Ibran’s lawyer further submitted that there was no proof to hyperlink his client with the alleged restoration of meat and that he was falsely implicated inside the case.
Passing the bail order, the High Court claimed that there was no supplies circumstance to suggest that the accused applicant was selling or transporting or offering available on the market or transport beef or beef merchandise.
