Vinay Kanodia vs Direcorate General Of Central Excise Intelligence

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 20.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on : 22.05.2026
+ CRL.REV.P. 608/2014 & CRL.M.A. 15236/2014
VINAY KANODIA .....Petitioner
versus
SANDEEP THAPLIYAL & ORS ..... Respondents
+ CRL.REV.P. 609/2014 & CRL.M.A. 15241/2014
VINAY KANODIA .....Petitioner
versus
DIRECORATE GENERAL OF CENTRAL
EXCISE INTELLIGENCE ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Anand, Ms. Harleen Kaur, Mr.
Eshaan Sethi, Ms. Mansi Singh, Mr.
Anshuman Vashishth, Mr. Pawan Yadav and
Mr. Gaurav Adalakha, Advs.
For the Respondent : Mr. Satish Aggarwala, SSC with Mr. Aman
Tripathi, Adv. for DGCEI in CRL.REV.P.
608/2014 and for respondents in CRL.REV.P.
609/2014
CORAM
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 608/2014 & CRL.REV.P. 609/2014 Page 1 of 20

JUDGMENT
1. The present petitions are field challenging the common order
dated 24.05.2014 (hereafter ‘ impugned order ’), passed in Criminal
Revision Nos. 20/2014 and 21/2014, whereby the learned Sessions
Court had set aside the order on charge dated 10.12.2013 as well as
charge framed on 04.01.2014 in complaint case being CC No.
273/01/13. Consequently, Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 (in CRL.REV.P.
608/2014)/ accused persons were discharged of the alleged offences.
The petitioner also seeks restoration of the aforesaid complaint before
the learned Trial Court for further proceedings.
2. The germane facts of the present cases are as under:
2.1. The petitioner/ complainant was the director of M/s. Vinay Wires
and Poly Products Pvt. Ltd., which was involved in manufacturing of
Poly Films, flexible laminates and trading of granule. Allegedly, on
30.06.2009, the accused persons, who were working in Director of
General Central Excise Intelligence (‘ DGCEI ’) at that time, conducted
the search operations on various business properties belonging to the
petitioner as well as the residential premises of the petitioner. On the
said date, the accused persons allegedly apprehended the petitioner
from his residential premises, whereafter, he was illegally detained for
more than 48 hours at the office of DGCEI, Kanpur. Several complaints
were made to the office of DGCEI by the wife and father of the
petitioner. The petitioner was ultimately released on 02.07.2009. It is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 608/2014 & CRL.REV.P. 609/2014 Page 2 of 20

alleged that the petitioner was subjected to physical and mental torture
in detention and he was also forced to sign on certain documents and
invoices. The petitioner was also allegedly forced to write his statement
under dictation of the accused persons. After being released, the
petitioner had to be admitted to a hospital by his family members.
Despite writing a letter dated 19.07.2009 to the Chairman, Central
Board of Excise and Customs and informing senior officers of DGCEI
regarding the alleged torture in detention, no action was taken. The
petitioner preferred a writ regarding his apprehension of being further
harassed, which was dismissed on 12.10.2009 with the observation that
the petitioner was at liberty to seek appropriate remedy if any illegality
was committed against him.
2.2. Subsequently, it is alleged that the accused persons again illegally
picked the petitioner on 10.11.2009 at 10/11:00PM from Balaji Delux
Hotel, Paharganj and forcibly took him to the office of DGCEI, R.K.
Puram, where he was wrongly confined from midnight of
10/11.11.2009 till 1:30PM on 11.11.2009. Allegedly, the petitioner was
apprehended in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy of the accused
persons to harass him, and he was tortured along with one Siddharth
Dixit, who was already present in custody of DGCEI. The petitioner
along with Siddharth Dixit were allegedly beaten mercilessly with
wooden logs and their nude photographs were also taken. Questions and
answers were allegedly dictated to them as well. The arrest of the
petitioner as well as Siddharth Dixit was shown to be at 1/1:30PM on
11.11.2009, and they were taken to Safdarjung Hospital for preparation
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 608/2014 & CRL.REV.P. 609/2014 Page 3 of 20

of their MLC. They were also produced before the Duty Magistrate on
the same date, who ordered their production before the Court on
12.11.2009. On being produced before the concerned Court on
12.11.2009, the petitioner as well as Siddharth Dixit stated that they had
been mercilessly beaten by officers of DGCEI after being lifted on
10.11.2009. They both showed their injury marks to the Court as well,
after which, it was observed by the Court that the file did not contain
any summons issued to either of them. Medical examination was
directed to be conducted, consequent to which, the petitioner and
Siddharth Dixit were examined at RML Hospital on the next date.
2.3. The subject complaint was preferred by the petitioner under
Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘ CrPC ’) alleging
commission of offences by Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 (in CRL.REV.P.
608/2014) under Sections 341/ 348/ 308/ 324/ 326/ 191/ 192/ 365/ 506/
193/ 120B/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’) through his father
in relation to the aforesaid allegations.
2.4. On receipt of the complaint, pre-summoning evidence was
recorded and summons were issued under Sections 323/ 348/ 365/ 368/
506/ 34 read with Section 120B of the IPC on 01.12.2009. The
summoning order was set aside by this Court by order dated 01.03.2011
essentially on account of absence of sanction under Section 197 of the
CrPC. It was also noted that the inquiry was within scope of duties and
the officers enjoyed the protection of Section 40 of the Central Excise
Act, 1944. It was noted that it could not be said that the acts of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 608/2014 & CRL.REV.P. 609/2014 Page 4 of 20

officers were not done in good faith merely on the complaint of the
complainant.
2.5. The Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the appeal filed by the
petitioner against the same and remanded the matter to the Trial Court
after observing that this Court had erred in quashing the summons on a
technicality.
2.6. Pre-charge evidence was led by the petitioner where he examined
himself (PW1), his father (PW2) and the Senior Manager of Hotel
Balaji (PW3). The petitioner correctly identified the accused persons in
Court and deposed on similar lines as his complaint and gave a detailed
account of his harassment. PW2 deposed in relation to the petitioner’s
detention in Kanpur as well as the complaints made before various
authorities in this regard. He further deposed that he had seen injury
marks on the body of the petitioner on 12.11.2009 when he saw the
petitioner in Court, and the petitioner had informed him about being
brutally beaten there. PW3 deposed that on 11.11.2009, he had found
from the receptionist that some persons had lifted a guest from the
Hotel. PW3 also produced CCTV footage.
2.7. DGCEI moved an application for addressing arguments on the
limited aspect of sanction, which was allowed by the learned
Magistrate.
2.8. In order on charge dated 10.12.2013, it was found that grave
suspicion was made out that the accused persons had committed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 608/2014 & CRL.REV.P. 609/2014 Page 5 of 20

offences punishable under Sections 323/348/365/368/506/34 of the IPC
and Section 120B of the IPC. It was observed that the petitioner had
deposed on similar lines at both the pre-summoning and pre-charge
stage, and he had merely elaborated on the conduct of each accused
specifically which was not fatal to the case of the prosecution. It was
also observed that the testimony of the petitioner is supported by his
medical documents as well as the evidence of PW3, who has stated that
a guest was lifted from the Hotel on 10.11.2009. The CCTV footage
produced by PW3 was perused and it was observed that the same clearly
reflects some element of coercion. It was also observed that the same
cannot be ignored for want of certificate under Section 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as the same was supported by PW3, who
was a Senior Manager at the Hotel. It was observed that the accused
persons were not protected by the law of sanction as a prima facie case
of forceful abduction of the petitioner as well as him being beaten for
extorting confession had been made out. Pursuant to the same, formal
charges were framed on 04.01.2014. Separate revision petitions were
preferred by the DGCEI and accused officers against the same.
2.9. The aforesaid order was set aside by the learned Sessions Court
by way of the impugned order. It was noted that there were a lot of
improvements and contradictions in the case and the petitioner had
admitted during cross-examination that he had not mentioned certain
allegations in the original complaint as well as prior statements or
before the Allahabad High Court. It was also noted that all acts in Delhi
were done in pursuance of proceedings in Kanpur, and the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 608/2014 & CRL.REV.P. 609/2014 Page 6 of 20

seemed to have himself come with the officials of DGCEI on service of
summons. It was further noted that age of injury was not recorded in the
petitioner’s MLC, and no such observation was made by the Duty
Magistrate in relation to the petitioner having suffered any injury or
beating. It was also noted that no report of any adverse physical
condition of the petitioner was made by Tihar Jail either, which belies
claims of torture. It was noted that the allegations only came to be made
on 12.11.2009 and although initially 4 officers were arrayed in the
complaint, subsequently 5 more accused were added. Electronic
evidence was rejected due to absence of certificate under Section 65B.
Lastly, it was noted that DGCEI had maintained that the officers were
acting in good faith in their official capacity, whereafter, no allegation
of criminal conspiracy could be attributed on the accused persons. It
was also noted that there was no fact that all accused officers were even
present at the time of incident, which is in contravention to allegations
of conspiracy.
2.10. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present
petitions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Sessions
Court had erred in discharging the accused persons by carrying out a
mini trial and without dealing with the arguments raised by the
petitioner. He submitted that the learned Sessions Court failed to
appreciate that there were no material contradictions in the deposition
of the petitioner and he had merely elaborated the role of the accused
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 608/2014 & CRL.REV.P. 609/2014 Page 7 of 20

persons. He submitted that the same cannot be deemed to be
improvements or contradictions.
4. He submitted that the Sessions Court has incorrectly observed
that the petitioner had admittedly expressed his willingness to join the
proceedings on 10.11.2009. He submitted that no such admission was
made by the petitioner in his deposition.
5. He submitted that as also recorded by the learned ACMM after
appraising the file, no summons were on record of the file and further,
no date, time or place of arrest was mentioned in the arrest memo. He
submitted that the observation of the learned ACMM regarding no
summons was never challenged as incorrect.
6. He submitted that meticulous appraisal of evidence is not needed
at the stage of framing of charges, and there is sufficient material on
record to proceed against the accused persons.
7. He submitted that the presence of the accused persons at the
Hotel as well as the totality of events that unfolded between 10.11.2009
and 11.11.2009 coupled with the MLCs of the petitioner clearly
corroborate the case of the petitioner. He submitted that the CCTV
footage of the Hotel has been overlooked by the Sessions Court even
though the same is corroborated by the statement of PW3. He submitted
that probative value of evidence cannot be looked into at the stage of
charge.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 608/2014 & CRL.REV.P. 609/2014 Page 8 of 20

8. He submitted that it has been erroneously noted that the petitioner
failed to make any allegations before the Duty Magistrate, without
appreciating that the petitioner has duly stated in his statement on
27.11.2009 that the whole incident had been narrated to the Duty
Magistrate, due to which, the petitioner was sent to judicial custody for
only one day. He submitted that the emphasis on no injuries prior to
judicial custody is belied by the MLC prepared by the Safdarjung
Hospital. He submitted that the MLCs of the petitioner have been
erroneously overlooked by the Sessions Court.
9. He submitted that the acts of the officers cannot be said to be
covered under protection of Section 197 of the CrPC as sanction is only
required for acts committed in discharge of duties. He submitted that
even in relation to the detention in Kanpur, it is wrongly noted that the
incident had been judicially scrutinized without appreciating that the
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court had granted express liberty to the
petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in case of commission of any
illegality. He submitted that even otherwise, the charge was only framed
in respect of the incident in Delhi.
10. He submitted that insofar as the implication of additional accused
is concerned, the CCTV footage was played in Court and the other
identifiable officers were then summoned with the named accused. He
submitted that the CCTV footage was downloaded from the original
hard disk and the same was produced and proved by the then Hotel
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 608/2014 & CRL.REV.P. 609/2014 Page 9 of 20

Manager, which is sufficient compliance of Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.
11. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no written
notice under Section 40 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was given
whereby the complaint was not maintainable.
12. He submitted that the petitioner is a Director in a company which
sold finished goods without accounting for the same and without
payment of central excise duty, and he was arrested in relation to the
said allegations in accordance with law. He submitted that the
concerned accused officers conducted search of premises and effected
arrest of the petitioner in a bona fide manner. He submitted that the
CCTV footage was inadmissible as evidence and PW3 has nowhere
stated that he prepared the CCTV footage or that he was present at the
spot at the relevant time.
13. He submitted that the learned Sessions Court has aptly
appreciated that the petitioner had made material improvements in his
deposition and there are apparent contradictions in his statements,
which warrant no further action against the accused.
ANALYSIS
14. At the outset, it is pertinent to take note of the scope of revisional
jurisdiction. The role of this Court in revision proceedings is limited to
only assessing the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned
order. This Court is required to exercise restraint and not interfere with
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 608/2014 & CRL.REV.P. 609/2014 Page 10 of 20

the findings of the impugned order or reappreciate evidence solely
because another view is possible unless the impugned order is wholly
unreasonable or untenable in law. In a case such as this one where the
Sessions Court has already exercised revisional jurisdiction, the
aforesaid principles gain even more significance.
15. Since the petitioner is essentially aggrieved by discharge of
accused, it will be apposite to also succinctly appreciate the law in
relation to framing of charges. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of
Sajjan Kumar v. CBI : (2010) 9 SCC 368 , has culled out the following
principles in respect of the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC
while observing that a prima facie case would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. The relevant paragraphs read as under :
“21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections
227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges
under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh
the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a
prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to
determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each
case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave
suspicion against the accused which has not been properly
explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and
proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece
of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the
case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced
before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage,
there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 608/2014 & CRL.REV.P. 609/2014 Page 11 of 20

(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form
an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can
frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required
to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has
committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the
material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge
the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on
record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the
accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to
evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find
out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value
disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged
offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be
expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution
states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the
broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to
suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial
Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this
stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or
acquittal.”
(emphasis supplied)
16. The Court at the stage of framing of charge is to evaluate the
material only for the purpose of finding out if the facts constitute the
alleged offence, given the ingredients of the offence. Thus, while
framing of charges, the Court ought to look at the limited aspect of
whether, given the material placed before it, there is grave suspicion
against the accused, which is not properly explained.
17. In this case, DGCEI has fervently sought to defend the accused
officers. It is argued that while arresting the petitioner, the accused
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 608/2014 & CRL.REV.P. 609/2014 Page 12 of 20

officers were only carrying out their bona fide duty, due to which, the
DGCEI impleaded itself before the Trial Court. The same is contested
by the petitioner who has maintained that he was subjected to torture
and illegally detained.
18. Although glaring allegations of illegal detention as well as torture
have been levelled in the present case, the sheer gravity of the
allegations cannot justify dilution of the threshold of grave suspicion. A
perusal of the material on record indicates that the case of the petitioner
is abysmally marred with contradictions as well as inconsistencies
which make it unsustainable to subject the accused to trial. After duly
appreciating the facts of the case, the learned Sessions Court was
justifiably persuaded to set aside the order on charge and discharge the
accused officers.
19. One of the main grounds agitated by the petitioner before this
Court is that the petitioner had merely elaborated upon his initial
allegations by specifying the exact role of the accused officers
respectively and the same has been wrongly taken as improvements in
the deposition of the petitioner. Mere clarification of previous
allegations is not sufficient to discredit a witness. Ordinarily, this Court
would be loath to even delve into the said aspect at the stage of framing
of charges. However, as the allegations are fulcrumed primarily on the
statement of the petitioner, consideration of the said aspect cannot be
ignored, especially since the allegations pertain to the year 2009.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 608/2014 & CRL.REV.P. 609/2014 Page 13 of 20

20. The learned Sessions Court has laboured and culled out the
embellishments as well as admitted improvements in the allegations
levelled by the petitioner. Perusal of the same indicates that although
the petitioner has admitted to not mentioning the concerned allegations
in his original complaint, statements dated 27.11.2009 and 01.12.2009
as well as in his writ before Allahabad High Court, he has volunteered
an explanation that he was in JC and the complaint was filed by his
father, who could not give the complete account. Even if the petitioner
is excused for the concerned allegations being absent in the original
complaint, it is unfathomable as to why he didn’t mention the same
while tendering his pre-summoning evidence on two different dates . As
also rightly appreciated by the learned Sessions Court, the petitioner
had signed the writ, despite which, many facts mentioned in the
complaint were not mentioned therein. Improvements to this extent and
of such nature, which have been made belatedly, severely weaken the
case of the petitioner. The same cannot be accepted as mere
clarifications.
21. Much emphasis has also been laid by the petitioner on the MLCs
as well as CCTV footage. As rightly appreciated by the learned Sessions
Court, the MLCs do not record the age of injury . The said aspect could
have been clarified by the examining doctor, who has not been
examined by the petitioner. Although the petitioner has sought to stress
that allegations to this effect were made before the Duty MM which led
to one day judicial remand, as was duly explained by him on
27.11.2009, this Court is unpersuaded by the same in absence of any
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 608/2014 & CRL.REV.P. 609/2014 Page 14 of 20

corroborative material to this effect. As noted by the learned Sessions
Judge, once an accused is produced before a Magistrate, the noting of
such a Magistrate is final. It is also rightly noted by the learned Sessions
Judge that an observation of physical condition of accused is made
before admitting them in Tihar Jail, but no averse report is made therein.
Lack of clarity in relation to injuries mentioned in the MLCs coupled
with absence of any record which indicates that any complaint was
made before the Duty Magistrate, casts significant doubt on the
allegations raised by the petitioner.
22. As far as the CCTV footage is concerned, the same is admittedly
not accompanied by any certificate under Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. It is contested by the petitioner that the CCTV
footage was downloaded from the original hard disk where the entire
original footage was stored, and the same was produced by the then
Hotel Manager, who was the custodian of the computer and CPU, and
the same was duly proved by him. The learned Trial Court had deemed
the electronic evidence to be believable by placing reliance on the
judgment in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu : (2005)
11 SCC 600 where it was held that a certificate under Section 65B of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not the only mode of proving
electronic evidence. The said decision has since been overruled and it
is no more res integra that an electronic record by way of secondary
evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements
under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are met [Ref.
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer : (2014) 10 SCC 473 ].
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 608/2014 & CRL.REV.P. 609/2014 Page 15 of 20

23. Perusal of the statements tendered by the Hotel Manager at the
pre-summoning stage as well as at the pre-charge stage makes it evident
that he has not evidenced that a copy of the recording was made in his
presence so as to enable him to vouch for the same being unedited.
Rather, he has admitted that the CCTV footage was not downloaded by
him and the CD (in which a copy of the footage was produced before
Court) was also not prepared by him. The said witness was admittedly
not present at the place of occurrence. The footage clearly was also not
in custody of the Manager. Thus, once it is settled that the footage in
pendrive/ CD cannot be admitted as evidence, the whole allegation in
relation to the petitioner being illegally apprehended from the hotel
becomes even more fickle in absence of any complaint being made by
the hotel management.
24. It is also unfathomable that the staff would take no action if a
guest is roughened up, beaten and coerced to check out from the hotel.
Further, peculiarly, even though it is stressed that the incident was
witnessed by hotel staff, particularly receptionist Mr. K.M. Pandey, no
eye witness who could lend credence to the allegations has been joined
by the petitioner.
25. In such circumstances, when the petitioner’s version is marred by
embellishments, the MLCs lack clarity and the footage is inadmissible,
the learned Sessions Court has rightly noted that it is unclear as to
whether all accused took remand, or they were even present on the
intervening night of 10.11.2009- 11.11.2009. The case of the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 608/2014 & CRL.REV.P. 609/2014 Page 16 of 20

is further rendered suspect by arraying of only 4 officers initially,
whereafter, 5 more officers were added and two more remained
unnamed.
26. It is also argued that there are substantial anomalies in the time
of arrest of the petitioner and deficiencies in arrest memo due to lack of
particulars. In the opinion of this Court, having taken note of the
infirmities in the case of the petitioner, the said fact alone is insufficient
to cast grave suspicion against the accused.
27. The case of the DGCEI and accused has been that the petitioner
was arrested after he joined investigation in pursuance of summons after
evading service on multiple occasions. The petitioner has sought to
create doubt on the said timeline of events by contesting that no
summons were issued to him, as is evident from the observations made
by the learned ACMM on 12.11.2009. Pertinently, the learned ACMM
noted that the accused had initially denied their presence at the Hotel in
reply to the petitioner’s bail application (Ex. CW1/10) and later
somersaulted by admitting to their presence at the Hotel during cross
examination. Perusal of the concerned reply only evidences that DGCEI
maintained that the petitioner had voluntarily come in compliance of
summons dated 10.11.2009. Although the service of the summons as
well as the petitioner going to the office of DGCEI at such a late hour
appears odd at first blush, the facts of the case clearly reflect that the
petitioner had been evading summons on flimsy grounds, which may
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 608/2014 & CRL.REV.P. 609/2014 Page 17 of 20

have prompted the officers to serve summons at night when they learnt
of the petitioner’s whereabouts.
28. While it is contested that the learned Sessions Judge has
erroneously recorded that the petitioner never expressed his willingness
to join the investigation on 10.11.2009 in pursuance of any summons,
however, a perusal of the petitioner’s pre-charge evidence shows that
although the petitioner had alleged that he was being beaten, he had
explicitly stated that he was willing to accompany them. Although it is
also disputed that the petitioner did not voluntarily turn up at the office
of DGCEI, however, as observed in the impugned order, it surfaced
during arguments that the petitioner had himself made a claim to this
effect in one of his bail applications.
29. Insofar as the contention in relation to no summons being placed
on record is concerned, it is stressed that the files perused by the learned
ACMM on 12.11.2009 were not the case files. It is contended that the
learned ACMM had signed on a file of arrest and few other files,
including a file of complaints of non-compliance of summons by
DGCEI to show the non-cooperation of the petitioner during
investigation. The learned Sessions Court has found the said
explanation to be plausible. This Court finds no perversity in the same.
30. The evidence of the petitioner’s father in relation to events that
transpired before his arrival in Delhi on 12.11.2009 has also been rightly
discarded as hearsay evidence.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 608/2014 & CRL.REV.P. 609/2014 Page 18 of 20

31. It will be apposite to appreciate that the allegation of the
petitioner from the very start has been that the incident in Delhi was the
result of a conspiracy in retaliation of his action of making complaints
in regard to the incident in Allahabad. The learned Trial Court has also
been weighed by the same and noted that the incidents in Kanpur have
been elaborated to show the ill designs of the accused. The learned
Sessions Judge had noted that the actions in Allahabad cannot be the
basis of prosecution against the accused. The petitioner has righty
pointed out that the charges are only in relation to the incident in Delhi
and he had received liberty to take appropriate action in relation to any
illegality against him. Bald allegations of conspiracy however do not
help the case of the petitioner. Pertinently, as per the record, nothing
came of the complaints made by the petitioner in relation to the
purported incident in Kanpur as well. Thus, the motive of the incident
is itself under shadow. In view of the same, considering the unreliability
of the CCTV and MLCs as well as the embellishments in the allegations
by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has failed
to make out a case of grave suspicion against the accused offers.
32. The department has also shown confidence in its officers and
repeatedly iterated that the actions of the accused were within the
bounds of law and done within the course of duty. It is maintained that
the actions of the accused persons were done in good faith, and the
Court ought not to have proceeded against the officers in absence of
valid sanction. Although it is well-settled that mere overreach
committed while purporting to act in official capacity doesn’t forfeit the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 608/2014 & CRL.REV.P. 609/2014 Page 19 of 20

protection of sanction, having found that the petitioner has failed to
make out a case on merits for framing of charges, this Court does not
consider it necessary to delve into the issue as to whether the alleged
acts of the accused officers would be such which would require sanction
at all.
33. Keeping in mind the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, this
Court is of the opinion that there is no such palpable perversity or
infirmity in the observations of the learned Sessions Court, which
warrants interference of this Court.
34. The present petitions are dismissed in the aforesaid terms.
Pending applications are also disposed of.
35. A photocopy of the Judgment passed today be kept in the
connected matter.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
MAY 22, 2026
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 608/2014 & CRL.REV.P. 609/2014 Page 20 of 20