Court emphasizes limited revisional jurisdiction; finds contradictions and lack of evidence fail to meet grave suspicion threshold.
In a significant decision, the Delhi High Court has upheld the discharge of nine officers from the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) accused of illegally detaining and torturing Vinay Kanodia, a director of a manufacturing company. The judgment, delivered by Justice Amit Mahajan, emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and the necessity for allegations to meet the threshold of "grave suspicion" to warrant a trial.
The case stems from an incident dating back to 2009, where Kanodia alleged that DGCEI officers conducted unlawful raids on his properties and detained him without legal grounds, subjecting him to physical and mental torture. Despite the gravity of these allegations, the High Court found substantial contradictions and inconsistencies in Kanodia’s claims, which undermined their credibility.
Central to the court's decision was the absence of corroborative evidence. The medical documents presented lacked clarity regarding the injuries' age, and the electronic evidence, such as CCTV footage, was deemed inadmissible due to the absence of a mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Justice Mahajan underscored that the role of the court in such revisional proceedings is restricted to assessing the correctness, legality, and propriety of the impugned order, without re-appreciating evidence unless the decision is entirely unreasonable or untenable in law. The court noted that the petitioner’s version was marred by embellishments and lacked the necessary evidentiary support to constitute a prima facie case.
The judgment also highlighted the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the framing of charges, emphasizing that mere suspicion is insufficient, and the probative value of evidence should not be scrutinized at this stage.
While the petitioner claimed that the Sessions Court conducted a "mini-trial," the High Court found no palpable perversity in the lower court's observations. The judgment reinforces the legal principle that the threshold for proceeding to trial must be met with substantial evidence, not merely allegations.
The decision is a reminder of the judiciary's cautious approach in revisional jurisdiction, ensuring that trials are not pursued without a substantial basis, thereby upholding the integrity of the legal process.
Bottom line:-
Revisional jurisdiction in framing of charges is limited to assessing correctness, legality, and propriety of the impugned order. Allegations must meet the threshold of "grave suspicion" for the accused to face trial.
Statutory provision(s):
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 227, 228; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 65B; Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 341, 348, 308, 324, 326, 191, 192, 365, 506, 193, 120B, 34; Central Excise Act, 1944 Section 40
Vinay Kanodia v. Sandeep Thapliyal, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2904766
