Confiscation of livestock for alleged illegal export failed where evidence and local reports created serious doubt about the seizure narrative.

Confiscation of livestock allegedly intended for illegal export was found unsustainable because the seizure narrative was not supported by reliable evidence. The authorities failed to corroborate that the buffaloes were unclaimed near the border, while the local report and surrounding circumstances indicated that the animals were grazing in front of the owner's house under normal caretaking conditions. The report of the Officer-in-Charge was not given proper weight, and the evidence on record created serious doubt about the allegation of attempted export to Bangladesh. The confiscation was therefore set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the buffaloes on the allegation of attempted illegal export to Bangladesh was sustainable on the facts and evidence on record.

Analysis: The seizure was treated as doubtful because the buffaloes were living stock and could not realistically remain unclaimed near the border without any caretaker. The local report supported the appellant's version that the animals were found grazing in front of his house, while the seizure theory was not corroborated by persons from the spot. The authorities below also failed to give proper weight to the report of the Officer-in-Charge and the surrounding circumstances casting serious doubt on the allegation that the buffaloes were seized as unclaimed near the border.

Conclusion: The confiscation was not sustained and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.

---