AFR Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12300 of 2021 Applicant :- Yas Mohammad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Chaurasia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Chaurasia, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General appearing along with Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State-opposite party. 2. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 18.03.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C-1, Ballia in Criminal Revision No. 28 of 2021 (Yash Mohammad Vs. State), arising out of order dated 09.02.2021 passed in Case Crime No. 360 of 2020 under Sections 3/5-A/8 of The Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 19552 and Section 11 of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 19603, Police Station-Bairiya, District Ballia. 3. The pleadings of the case indicate that pursuant to proceedings initiated with lodging of an F.I.R. dated 21.9.2020 under section 3/5-A/8 of the PCSA and Section 11 of the PCAA registered as Case Crime No. 360 of 2020 at Police Station-Bairiya, District-Ballia, the vehicle stated to be carrying the animals was seized under section 5-A of the PCSA. The applicant claiming to be the owner of the vehicle in question, filed an application before the court of ACJM-I, Ballia, seeking release of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate upon taking into consideration the scheme of the Act and in particular, sub-section (7) of Section 5-A, which has been inserted by U.P. Act No. 20 of 2020, rejected the application. Aggrieved, against the order the applicant preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 28 of 2021 (Yash Mohammad Vs. State) and the learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-1, Ballia held that there was no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Magistrate and accordingly, dismissed the revision by order dated 18.03.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has sought to assail the orders passed by the revisional court and the Magistrate by seeking to contend that since the vehicle of the applicant had been confiscated, the courts below have committed an error in rejecting the application for release, ignoring the powers exercisable under section 451 and 457 of the Code. He submits that the property in question i.e. the vehicle which is lying with the authorities is liable to be released. Reliance is sought to be placed on the judgement in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat4 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate-I has controverted the aforesaid contention by submitting that the proceedings have been initiated under the PCSA, which is a Special Act, and provides a separate procedure with regard to confiscation and seizure under Section 5-A thereof, and in view of the provisions contained under Section 5 of the Code, the powers under Sections 451 to 457 relating to disposal of property would. rohit typing center allahabad