Delhi HC Upholds DGCEI Officers' Discharge In Custodial Torture Case, Rejects CCTV Evidence

On 22 May, the Delhi High Court upheld the discharge of officers of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) who were accused of illegally detaining, kidnapping and torturing a businessman during a central excise investigation.

A Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan held that the CCTV footage relied upon by the complainant was not admissible because it did not have the required certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and dismissed the revision petitions challenging the discharge of the DGCEI officers. The Bench observed:

“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.”

The case arose from allegations by businessman Vinay Kanodia, who alleged that DGCEI officers illegally detained him, kidnapped him from a Delhi hotel in 2009 during a central excise investigation, and tortured him in custody to compel him to sign statements and documents. The Trial Court framed charges against the officers for offences including wrongful confinement, kidnapping and criminal intimidation.

The Sessions Court later discharged the officers after it found several contradictions and improvements in the complainant's version. The High Court affirmed this view and held that the complainant's case was “abysmally marred with contradictions as well as inconsistencies.”

The High Court examined the CCTV footage relied upon by the complainant and rejected it as inadmissible evidence. It noted that the hotel manager who produced the footage admitted that he had neither downloaded nor prepared it and that he was not present at the scene of the alleged incident.

It also found that the medical evidence lacked clarity, as the MLCs did not record the age of injuries and no contemporaneous complaint before a Magistrate supported the allegations of custodial torture.

The Bench further held that mere allegations of custodial violence did not dilute the threshold required for framing criminal charges. It concluded that no “grave suspicion” arose against the officers and upheld their discharge.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the revision petitions.

Appearance 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.

Appearance for the Respondents: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, SSC with Mr. Aman Tripathi, Adv. for DGCEI in CRL.REV.P. 608/2014 and for respondents in CRL.REV.P. 2609/2014