Dharamendra Kumar Gupta vs. State Of Up And Another

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition. The primary reason for dismissal was the finding recorded by the concerned Trial Court that the documents produced by the petitioner in respect of the seized engines did not match the engine numbers of the engines seized by the police authorities. This categorical finding by the Trial Court formed the basis for dismissing the petitioner's release application. The High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227, found no illegality in the orders passed by the courts below, given this factual discrepancy. The Court did not explicitly discuss the applicability of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat or the GST registration of the petitioner's business. The ratio decidendi is that if the documents presented to prove ownership of seized goods do not correspond with the seized goods, the release application can be legitimately dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Dharmendra Kumar Gupta, owner of Ananya Traders dealing in scrap vehicles registered under GST, filed a writ petition challenging two orders. The first order, dated 25.07.2025, was passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, dismissing his release application for eight seized vehicle engines. The second order, dated 07.11.2025, was passed by the Additional Session Judge (FTC), Varanasi, dismissing his criminal revision against the Magistrate's order. The engines were seized by police authorities from the petitioner's shop in connection with FIR registered under Sections 317(2), 317(4), and 317(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The petitioner claimed the allegations were false and that he had produced ownership documents. The State contended the engines were stolen and the petitioner failed to establish ownership.

Key Issues

1. Whether the courts below erred in dismissing the petitioner's release application for the seized engines without properly considering the ownership documents and following the principles laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and criminal procedure). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the dismissal of his release application and subsequent revision was illegal. He contended that he had produced valid documents to establish his ownership of the seized engines and that both courts below failed to consider these documents. He relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, suggesting that the seized property should be released if ownership is established and the property is not required for investigation. He also asserted that the allegations leading to the FIR were false. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State-respondent argued that the seized engines were stolen property and that the petitioner had failed to prove his ownership over them. They did not rely on any specific provisions, circulars, or precedents in the judgment.