Union Of INDIA vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta

Held

The Court held that the respondent had failed to prima facie prove ownership of the seized mobile phones, as he could not produce the necessary invoices despite being granted multiple opportunities. Consequently, the order dated 11/01/2024 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, which allowed the release of the mobile phones on Supurdagi, was set aside. The Court restored the order dated 21/11/2023 passed by the CJM, Gwalior, which had denied the release. The reasoning was that seized articles can only be handed over on Supurdagi to the owner, and the respondent had not met this prerequisite. The Court noted that an interim order had stayed the Additional Sessions Judge's order, implying the seized mobiles were in the possession of the GST Department, thus no further directions were required. The application was allowed.

Facts

This case involves a criminal application filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by the Union of India (applicant) against an order dated 11/01/2024. This order was passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in Criminal Revision No. 487/2023. The revision was filed by the respondent, Rakesh Kumar Gupta, against an earlier order dated 21/11/2023 by the CJM, Gwalior. The CJM's order, arising from GST Case No. 1921/2023, had denied the respondent's prayer to release two seized mobile phones on Supurdagi. The Additional Sessions Judge, however, allowed the revision, setting aside the CJM's order. This High Court had directed the respondent to file invoices of the seized mobile phones to establish ownership. Despite being granted a last opportunity, the respondent failed to produce these invoices.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent has established ownership of the two seized mobile phones, thereby entitling him to their release on Supurdagi, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and principles of natural justice? The Petitioner (Union of India) argued that the respondent failed to produce the invoices for the seized mobile phones, even after multiple opportunities. This failure, the petitioner contended, indicated that the respondent was not the rightful owner and thus not entitled to the release of the seized articles on Supurdagi. The petitioner relied on the principle that seized articles can only be handed over to their owner. The Respondent (Rakesh Kumar Gupta) did not present any arguments as he failed to produce the required invoices. The judgment notes that counsel for the respondent conceded that the invoices could not be produced.