Delhi District Court
Kapil Arora vs Central Goods And Service Tax North on 9 June, 2025
DLSH010074192024 Page 1 of 17
CR No. 223/2025
Kapil Arora Vs. CGST - North
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05, NEW DELHI,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision Petition No. 223/2025
In the matter of :-
Kapil Arora,
S/o Mr. Rajendra Kumar Arora,
R/o 30/13, 3rd Floor, East Patel Nagar,
Central District, New Delhi-110008.
.........Revisionist
accused before the Ld. Trial Court)
(through Sh. Lalit Valecha, Advocate)
Versus
CGST, Delhi - North
CR Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
.....Respondent
(complainant before the Ld. Trial Court)
CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 438 BNSS 2023
Date of institution : 17.04.2025.
Date when judgment reserved : 02.06.2025.
Date of Judgment : 09.06.2025.
JUDGMENT:
–
1. The present revision petition is filed u/s. 438 BNSS 2023 on behalf of revisionist/
DLSH010074192024 Page 2 of 17
CR No. 223/2025
Kapil Arora Vs. CGST – North
accused against order dated 2.04.2025 passed by Ld. Magistrate in case bearing File
No. GEXCOM/AE/INV/GST/6731/2024-AE-DGARM-CGST-DEL(N)/28050, titled
Kapil Arora Vs CGST North, vide which the application of the revisionist for
preservation of CCTV footage of CGST North Office, CR Building, ITO, Delhi from
22.10.2024 to 24.10.2024 was DISMISSED as infructuous, as the CCTV backup was
only for 30 days, which period had expired by the time the application was filed.
2. The impugned order, which is under challenge by way of the present revision petition
is reproduced as under :
“1. Arguments on the aforesaid application have already been heard.
2. Ld. Counsel for the applicant relied upon citation i.e. Paramvir Singh Saini Vs. Baljit Singh
(2020) 12 SCC 304 and Sheelo Vs. The State of Punjab, CRM-M-46240-202 of the Hon’ble
High Court of Punjab & Haryana High Court.
2. During course of the arguments, it was submitted by Id. SSC for the Department that
CCTV cameras are under the administrative control of the Income Tax office and request has
been sent to the said office to provide CCTV footage from 22.10.2024 to 24.10.2024. Ld.
SSC for the department also placed a letter dated 07.02.2025 from Jt. Commissioner of
Income Tax, as per the same, CCTV footage is not available for the period from 22.10.2024
to 24:10.2024 as the backup was available for 30 days only.
3. Perusal of record reflects that present application was filed on 29.01.2025 so on the date of
filing of application, CCTV footage was not available with the concerned Department.
Application is disposed of being infructuous. Explanation be called from the Commissioner,
Income Tax, CR Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi as to why CCTV footage was not preserved
in compliance of order of the Paramvir Singh Saini Vs. Baljit Singh (2020) 12 SCC 304 of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Copy of this order be given dasti to all concerned. Copy
of order be sent to the concerned Commissioner, Income Tax.
4. Matter be re-listed for filing reply Commissioner, Income Tax on 30.04.2025.”
(emphasis supplied)
3. In the revision petition it is stated that the respondent required the CCTV forage as it is
crucial piece of evidence which will prove:
The presence and movement of the revisionist in the CGST office;
The conditions under which he was detained and interrogated;
The coercion and undue influence exerted by the officials before his formal
DLSH010074192024 Page 3 of 17
CR No. 223/2025Kapil Arora Vs. CGST – North
arrest; and
The extent of procedural violations committed by the CGST officials.
4. The following prayer has been made in the revision petition:
“a) Pass appropriate orders thereby calling TCR in CASE FILE NO: –
GEXCOM/AE/INV/GST/6731/2024-AE-DGARM-CGS DEL(N) TITLED AS “KAPIL
ARORA VS CGST NORTH”;
b) Pass appropriate orders thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 02.04.2025 passed
by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.
b) Pass appropriate orders thereby Directing seizure of the DVRs for the retrieval of CCTV
footage of CGST North Office, CR Building, IT®, Delhi, from 22.10.2024 to 24.10.2024 by
CFSL.”
5. The main relief that the revisionist is seeking from this court is that directions be
issued for seizure of the DVRs for the retrieval of CCTV footage of CGST North
Office, CR Building, ITO, Delhi, from 22.10.2024 to 24.10.2024 by CFSL (Central
Forensic Science Laboratory).
6. Grounds of challenge: The impugned order has been challenged on the following
grounds:
1. Lack of Judicial Application of Mind
The impugned order is alleged to be passed without proper judicial reasoning or
appreciation of the legal and factual context. It is stated that Ld Trial Court
failed to recognize the legal necessity of retrieving and preserving CCTV
footage, which is central to the revisionist’s defense.
2. CCTV Footage as Crucial Exculpatory Evidence
The revisionist contends that the CCTV footage from the CGST North Office
(22-24 October 2024) is the sole direct evidence capable of proving:
His illegal detention prior to formal arrest.
Coercion and undue influence by CGST officials.
The true sequence of events, contradicting the prosecution’s narrative.
Failure to secure this footage deprives the revisionist of a fair opportunity to
defend himself, violating his right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the
Constitution.
3. Evidence of Illegal Arrest and Custody Conditions
DLSH010074192024 Page 4 of 17
CR No. 223/2025Kapil Arora Vs. CGST – North
The footage is said to show:
The revisionist was taken into custody at 1:30 AM on 23.10.2024 but formally
arrested only at 6:30 PM.
His mobile phone was seized without proper documentation.
He was allegedly forced to sign blank papers.
These claims, if substantiated by CCTV, would demonstrate serious procedural
violations and human rights abuses.
4. Violation of Fundamental Rights (Articles 21 & 22)
Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty includes the right to a fair trial and
protection from unlawful detention.
Article 22: Protects against arbitrary arrest and mandates procedural safeguards.
The non-preservation of CCTV footage is argued to be a deliberate suppression
of evidence, infringing these constitutional rights.
5. Non-Compliance with Directives of Hon’ble Supreme Court
The trial court and CGST officials allegedly failed to comply with the Supreme
Court’s binding directives in:
Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020) 12 SCC 304: Mandates CCTV
installation and preservation in all police and investigative agency offices, with
footage retained for at least six months.
Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P. (2015) 7 SCC 178: Held that failure to produce
CCTV footage can lead to adverse inference against the prosecution.
These rulings emphasize transparency, accountability, and the right of the
accused to access surveillance evidence.
6. Failure to Retrieve Deleted Footage
Even if the footage was deleted, courts have held that:
Forensic recovery is a mandatory step.
Electronic evidence is not irretrievably lost and can be recovered using
advanced techniques.
The Delhi High Court in Pooja Khetan v. State of NCT of Delhi W.P. (CRL)
1006/2015 laid down detailed procedures for immediate seizure and
preservation of CCTV footage, which were not followed.
7. Failure to Initiate Contempt Proceedings
The trial court allegedly failed to:
DLSH010074192024 Page 5 of 17
CR No. 223/2025
Kapil Arora Vs. CGST – North
Take cognizance of the deliberate non-compliance with Supreme Court
directives.
Refer the matter to the High Court for contempt proceedings against erring
officials, despite having the authority and obligation to do so.
8. Irreparable Harm to Defense
The destruction or non-retrieval of CCTV footage is said to cause irreversible
prejudice to the revisionist’s defense, as it eliminates the only direct evidence
supporting his claims.
9. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
The impugned order is criticized for being arbitrary and unreasoned, lacking
any justification for not preserving the CCTV footage, thereby violating the
principle of audi alteram partem (right to be heard).
Arguments
7. Notice of the revision petition was issued to CGST Delhi North, however, no one
appeared for the respondent, hence arguments were heard on 2.6.2025 on behalf of the
revisionist. The arguments were addressed by Sh. Lalit Valecha, Ld Counsel for the
revisionist. In the arguments Ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions recorded in
revision petition and prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
Scope of Revision under section 438 BNSS (397 Cr.P.C 1973)
8. Prior to adjudicating the case on its merits, it is essential to delineate the scope and
extent of these proceedings as well as the authority vested in this court under section
438 BNSS.
9. Section 438 BNSS read as under:
438. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.
(1)The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any
proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for
the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any
finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of
such inferior Court, and may, when calling, for such record, direct that the execution of any
sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement that he be released on
his own bond or bail bond pending the examination of the record.
Explanation.-All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original
DLSH010074192024 Page 6 of 17
CR No. 223/2025
Kapil Arora Vs. CGST – North
or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes
of this sub-section and of section 439.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to
any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court
or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the
other of them.
10. The wording of the section is verbatim the same as of section 397 Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973.
11. A plain reading of Section 438 of the BNSS clearly indicates that Section 438(1)
allows aggrieved parties to challenge the correctness, legality, or propriety of any
finding, sentence, or order issued by the trial court. Such challenges can be brought
before a revisional court, namely the High Court or the Sessions Judge, as Section 438
confers concurrent jurisdiction upon both judicial authorities.
12. Section 438 (2) BNSS prohibits the revision powers under Section 397 (1) BNSS from
being used on interlocutory orders in appeals, enquiries, trials, or other proceedings.
This creates an explicit legislative bar against revising such orders.
13. It is well settled law that scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited to the extent of
satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or
order passed by the Trial Court and jurisdiction under section 438 BNSS to be
exercised for setting right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law cannot be
equated with the power of Appellate Court.
14. As regards the scope of section 397 Cr.P.C (analogous to section 438 BNSS) in
judgment titled as ‘Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander‘, (2012) 9 SCC 460 decided on
13.09.2012, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that :-
“8. ….Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the
records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity
of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent
defect or an error of jurisdiction or law . There has to be a well- founded error and it may not
be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of
careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law…….”
DLSH010074192024 Page 7 of 17
CR No. 223/2025
Kapil Arora Vs. CGST – North
15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishna Kumar
Pandey’, Crl. Appeal No.1852 of 2019 decided on 06.12.2019, made the following
observations :
“8. The scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court (or Sessions Court) under
Section 397 Cr.P.C, is limited to the extent of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or
propriety of any finding, sentence or order passed by an inferior Court. The revisional Court
is entitled to look into the regularity of any proceeding before an inferior Court. As reiterated
by this Court in a number of cases, the purpose of this revisionsal power is to set right a
patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law.”
16. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sanjaysinh Ramarao Chavan Vs. Dattatray
Gulabrao Phalke, (2015) 3 SCC 123 held:
“14. ………Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the
court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is
palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order,
merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an
appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in
the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The
revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of
an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to
be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the
decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the
judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with
decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction”. (emphasis supplied).
17. Scope of revision has been explained in para 9 of judgment of Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi Taron Mohan Vs. State & Anr. 2021 SCC OnLine 312 which reads as under:
“9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that
Section 397 CrPC gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the
correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the
proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality,
propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not
dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the
material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and
order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of
evidence. ”
18. The precise purpose of Revision is to examine the correctness, legality and propriety
DLSH010074192024 Page 8 of 17
CR No. 223/2025
Kapil Arora Vs. CGST – North
of the order in question and to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or
law. Needless to say, that the power of revision needs to be exercised fairly, rationally
and judiciously in order to put right any manifest error of law or jurisdiction.
Discussion on the merits of the revision petition:
19. The scope of Section 94 BNSS (91 Cr.P.C.) in a similar matter was considered by
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in judgment titled Mohd. Hashim Vs. GNCT of Delhi,
wherein in paras-14 to 16, it was observed as under :
“14. The cardinal issue which requires adjudication in the instant petition is in the nature of
the power conferred on the Court or any Officer in charge of the Police Station under Section
91 of the Cr.P.C. For convenience, Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under:
“91. Summons to produce document or other thing.–
Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the
production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes
of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before
such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written
order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed
to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place
stated in the summons or order.
Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing
shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or
thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.
Nothing in this section shall be deemed– (a) to affect sections 123 and 124 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers‟ Books Evidence Act,
1891 (13 of 1891), or (b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or
any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority.”
15. A plain reading on the above quoted provision makes it evidently clear that the powers
conferred therein are enabling in nature, aimed at arming the Court or any Officer of the
Police Station concerned to enforce and to ensure production of any document or other
things, “necessary or desirable”, for the purpose of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other
proceedings under the Code, by issuing summons or written orders to those in possession of
such materials. Therefore, sine qua non of an order under this Section is consideration of the
Court that the production of the documents concerned is desirable and necessary for the
purpose of trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath
Padhi, 2005 (1) SCC 568 held as under:
“25. Any document or other thing envisaged under the aforesaid provision can be
ordered to be produced on finding that the same is “necessary or desirable for the
purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code”. The first
and foremost requirement of the section is about the document being necessary or
desirable. The necessity or desirability would have to be seen with reference to the
stage when a prayer is made for the production. If any document is necessary or
DLSH010074192024 Page 9 of 17
CR No. 223/2025Kapil Arora Vs. CGST – North
desirable for the defence of the accused, the question of invoking Section 91 at the
initial stage of framing of a charge would not arise since defence of the accused is not
relevant at that stage. When the section refers to investigation, inquiry, trial or other
proceedings, it is to be borne in mind that under the section a police officer may move
the court for summoning and production of a document as may be necessary at any of
the stages mentioned in the section. Insofar as the accused is concerned, his
entitlement to seek order under Section 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of
defence. When the section talks of the document being necessary and desirable, it is
implicit that necessity and desirability is to be examined considering the stage when
such a prayer for summoning and production is made and the party who makes it,
whether police or accused. If under Section 227, what is necessary and relevant is
only the record produced in terms of Section 173 of the Code, the accused cannot at
that stage invoke Section 91 to seek production of any document to show his
innocence. Under Section 91 summons for production of document can be issued by
court and under a written order an officer in charge of a police station can also direct
production thereof. Section 91 does not confer any right on the accused to produce
document in his possession to prove his defence. Section 91 presupposes that when
the document is not produced process may be initiated to compel production thereof.
Reliance on behalf of the accused was placed on some observations made in the case
of Om Parkash Sharma v. CBI [(2000) 5 SCC 679 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1014] . In that
case the application filed by the accused for summoning and production of documents
was rejected by the Special Judge and that order was affirmed by the High
Court. Challenging those orders before this Court, reliance was placed on behalf of the
accused upon Satish Mehra case [(1996) 9 SCC 766 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1104] . The
contentions based on Satish Mehra case [(1996) 9 SCC 766 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1104]
have been noticed in para 4 as under: (SCC p. 682) “4. The learned counsel for the
appellant reiterated the stand taken before the courts below with great vehemence by
inviting our attention to the decision of this Court reported in Satish Mehra v. Delhi
Admn. [(1996) 9 SCC 766 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1104] laying emphasis on the fact that
the very learned Judge in the High Court has taken a different view in such matters, in
the decision reported in Ashok Kaushik v. State [(1999) 49 DRJ 202] . Mr Altaf
Ahmed, the learned ASG for the respondents not only contended that the decisions
relied upon for the appellants would not justify the claim of the appellant in this case,
at this stage, but also invited, extensively our attention to the exercise undertaken by
the courts below to find out the relevance, desirability and necessity of those
documents as well as the need for issuing any such directions as claimed at that stage
and consequently there was no justification whatsoever, to intervene by an
interference at the present stage of the proceedings.”
Insofar as Section 91 is concerned, it was rightly held that the width of the powers of that
section was unlimited but there were inbuilt, inherent limitations as to the stage or point of
time of its exercise, commensurate with the nature of proceedings as also the compulsions
of necessity and desirability, to fulfil the task or achieve the object. Before the trial court the
stage was to find out whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding to the next stage
against the accused. The application filed by the accused under Section 91 of the Code for
summoning and production of document was dismissed and order was upheld by the High
DLSH010074192024 Page 10 of 17
CR No. 223/2025
Kapil Arora Vs. CGST – North
Court and this Court. But observations were made in para 6 to the effect that if the accused
could produce any reliable material even at that stage which might totally affect even the very
sustainability of the case, a refusal to look into the material so produced may result in
injustice, apart from averting an exercise in futility at the expense of valuable judicial/public
time, these observations are clearly obiter dicta and in any case of no consequence in view of
conclusion reached by us hereinbefore. Further, the observations cannot be understood to
mean that the accused has a right to produce any document at the stage of framing of charge
having regard to the clear mandate of Sections 227 and 228 in Chapter 18 and Sections 239
and 240 in Chapter 19.
We are of the view that jurisdiction under Section 91 of the Code when invoked by the
accused, the necessity and desirability would have to be seen by the court in the context of
the purpose — investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code. It would also
have to be borne in mind that law does not permit a roving or fishing inquiry.”
16. In another matter Nitya Dharmanda & Anr vs. Gopal Sheelum Reddy & Anr, (2018) 20
SCC 93, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“5. It is settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, the accused cannot
ordinarily invoke Section 91. However, the court being under the obligation to impart
justice and to uphold the law, is not debarred from exercising its power, if the interest
of justice in a given case so require, even if the accused may have no right to
invoke Section 91. To exercise this power, the court is to be satisfied that the material
available with the investigator, not made part of the charge-sheet, has crucial bearing
on the issue of framing of charge.
6. In Debendra Nath Padhi [State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568 : 2005
SCC (Cri) 415] , it was observed: (SCC pp. 579-80, para 25)
“25. Any document or other thing envisaged under the aforesaid provision can be
ordered to be produced on finding that the same is „necessary or desirable for the
purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code ‟. The first
and foremost requirement of the section is about the document being necessary or
desirable. The necessity or desirability would have to be seen with reference to the
stage when a prayer is made for the production. If any document is necessary or
desirable for the defence of the accused, the question of invoking Section 91 at the
initial stage of framing of a charge would not arise since defence of the accused is not
relevant at that stage. When the section refers to investigation, inquiry, trial or other
proceedings, it is to be borne in mind that under the section a police officer may move
the court for summoning and production of a document as may be necessary at any of
the stages mentioned in the section. Insofar as the accused is concerned, his
entitlement to seek order under Section 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of
defence. When the section talks of the document being necessary and desirable, it is
implicit that necessity and desirability is to be examined considering the stage when
such a prayer for summoning and production is made and the party who makes it,
whether police or accused. If under Section 227, what is necessary and relevant is
only the record produced in terms of Section 173 of the Code, the accused cannot at
that stage invoke Section 91 to seek production of any document to show his
innocence. Under Section 91 summons for production of document can be issued by
court and under a written order an officer in charge of a police station can also direct
DLSH010074192024 Page 11 of 17
CR No. 223/2025Kapil Arora Vs. CGST – North
production thereof. Section 91 does not confer any right on the accused to produce
document in his possession to prove his defence. Section 91 presupposes that when
the document is not produced process may be initiated to compel production thereof.”
7. In Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92:
(2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] a Bench of five Judges observed: (SCC pp. 115- 16, para 19)
“19. The court is the sole repository of justice and a duty is cast upon it to uphold the
rule of law and, therefore, it will be inappropriate to deny the existence of such
powers with the courts in our criminal justice system where it is not uncommon that
the real accused, at times, get away by manipulating the investigating and/or the
prosecuting agency. The desire to avoid trial is so strong that an accused makes efforts
at times to get himself absolved even at the stage of investigation or inquiry even
though he may be connected with the commission of the offence.”
8. Thus, it is clear that while ordinarily the Court has to proceed on the basis of material
produced with the charge-sheet for dealing with the issue of charge but if the court is satisfied
that there is material of sterling quality which has been withheld by the
investigator/prosecutor, the court is not debarred from summoning or relying upon the same
even if such document is not a part of the charge-sheet. It does not mean that the defence has
a right to invoke Section 91 CrPC dehors the satisfaction of the court, at the stage of charge.”
(emphasis supplied)
20. From the aforesaid judgment it is clear that insofar as the revisionist is concerned, his
entitlement to seek order under Section 94 BNSS would ordinarily not come till the
stage of defence. However, the court being under the obligation to impart justice and
to uphold the law, is not debarred from exercising its power, if the interest of justice in
a given case so require, even if the accused may have no right to invoke Section 94
BNSS.
21. However, sine qua non of an order under this Section is consideration of the Court that
the production of the documents concerned is desirable and necessary for the purpose
of trial. Necessity and desirability is to be examined considering the stage when such a
prayer for summoning and production is made and the party who makes it, whether
police or accused. It is clear from the aforesaid judgment that law does not permit a
roving or fishing inquiry
22. The simple question before this court is whether there is any patent defect or an error
of jurisdiction or law in the impugned order dated 2.4.2025, which needs to be
rectified by this court in the present Revision proceedings?
DLSH010074192024 Page 12 of 17
CR No. 223/2025
Kapil Arora Vs. CGST – North
23. It is a matter of record, that the CCTV system had a backup of only 30 days and as
such the CCTV footage of November 2024 was not available on 29.1.2025, i.e. on the
date on which the application for preserving the same was filed.
24. Thus, the Ld. Trial Court rightly held that the application filed by the revisionist on
29.1.2025, seeking preservation of the CCTV footage of CGST North Office, CR
Building, ITO, Delhi from 22.10.2024 to 24.10.2024, had become infructuous. The Ld
Trial Court could not have ordered to preserve a CCTV footage which no longer
existed, as the back up was only for a period of 30 days.
25. It may be noted that in the application filed by the revisionist, no relief was sought
regarding seizing the DVR and sending it to FSL for retrieval of the deleted CCTV
footage. However, in the opinion of this court the said relief could not have been
granted by the Ld Trail Court because in a criminal case, the court does not have a
duty to proactively collect evidence for the accused. The responsibility for presenting
evidence rests primarily with prosecution and the defense. While the court can
examine witnesses or collect evidence to clarify issues, if necessary, it does not act as
an investigator for the accused. Additionally, this case does not involve the recovery of
contraband under the NDPS or the recovery of firearms under the Arms Act, where the
entire case depends solely on the recovery made. This case pertains to the evasion of
GST, which is primarily based on the documentation collected during the
investigation. Nevertheless, even if the CCTV footage were crucial for some reason,
once the backup period has expired, retrieving the CCTV footage from the hard drive
using forensic tools is highly uncertain. There is no guarantee that such an effort
would yield results. The court cannot issue orders at the request of the accused that
significantly impact the department’s operations, particularly when the DVR contains
CCTV footage that may be required by the department or other applicants as well.
26. Moreover, such a relief cannot be granted for the reason that if such relief is granted,
DLSH010074192024 Page 13 of 17
CR No. 223/2025
Kapil Arora Vs. CGST – North
then the forensic labs, which are already overburdened, will be deliberately flooded
with such requests, as that would delay the trail and eventually help the accused.
Further, retrieval of data from a DVR which runs into thousands of GB, is not an easy
task, rather such a task may take weeks altogether and at the end it is quite unlikely
that the data would be recovered/retrived in a form which is comprehensible.
27. Last but not the least, if such request is allowed then in every case, whether two
months old or two years old, requests will be made to get the DVR or the NAS
(Network Attached Storage) seized for the retrieval of CCTV footage or (Call Detail
Records) CDRs1 of which back up period has expired and permitting such seizure
would neither be possible, nor in the interest of the society.
28. As far as the violation of the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Paramvir
Singh Saini Vs. Baljit Singh (2020) 12 SCC 304 is concerned, the Ld Trial Court has
called for an explanation vide impugned order and if the revisionist is aggrieved by
any act of the respondent, which in his opinion is in violation of the order of Hon’ble
Apex Court, then he may pursue the remedy of contempt directly, instead of pressing
the Ld. Trial Court to draft a contempt reference. The discretion of the Ld Trial Court
on this aspect cannot be curtailed by this court in the present revision proceedings.
29. Conclusion: In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated
9.04.2025 is upheld as no patent defect or error of jurisdiction or law is found
therein. The Ld Trial Court could not have ordered the production of a
document (CCTV footage) that no longer existed and the prayer that the DVR
be seized and be sent to FSL falls with the domain of roving and fishing inquiry,
which is not permitted.
Imposition of cost in Criminal Revision
1
From Mobile Operators.
DLSH010074192024 Page 14 of 17
CR No. 223/2025
Kapil Arora Vs. CGST – North
30. Before concluding, I must express this court’s deep concern and disappointment
regarding the revisionist’s insidious and cavalier approach in filing this frivolous
petition. Liberal access to justice should not be misconstrued as an opportunity to
create chaos and indiscipline; such petitions should be met with substantial penalties.
The integrity of the judicial process will be significantly compromised if such actions
are not addressed firmly. Litigants who abuse court procedures should be prepared to
face the necessary repercussions.
31. It is important to prevent wealthy litigants 2 from pursuing unnecessary litigation, as
these cases can slow down the justice system and delay trials for other litigants. Courts
must ensure that the legal system is not misused to obstruct or delay justice. This
enables courts to address valid cases promptly and meet the needs of those seeking
justice. Imposing real-time costs is essential to ensure access to courts for individuals
with legitimate grievances rather than frivolous petitions like this one.
32. The issue that in appropriate cases, costs can also be imposed while dismissing
revision petition is no longer res integra. Reliance can be placed upon judgments of
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Vijay Ghai v. State Crl. M. C. No.
3669/2011 decided on 01.11.2013 and M/s Miracle Infoweb Pvt. Ltd. v. State, Crl. M.
C. No. 4529/2013 decided on 07.11.2013.
Observations of Hon’ble Delhi High Court on imposition of cost in a criminal
revision in the matter of Inderjeet Kaur Kalsi v. NCT of Delhi & Anr, 2013 DHC 6114
are reproduced here as under:
22. Imposition of Costs
22.1 Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and or ordering prosecution would go a
long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated
documents by the litigants. The cost should be equal to the benefits derived by the litigants,
and the harm and deprivation suffered by the rightful person so as to check the frivolous
litigations and prevent the people from reaping a rich harvest of illegal acts through Court.
2
It may be noted that more than 2 crores cash is stated to have been recovered from the revisionist, and he is alleged to
have evaded more than 200 crores of GST.
DLSH010074192024 Page 15 of 17
CR No. 223/2025
Kapil Arora Vs. CGST – North
The costs imposed by the Courts must be the real costs equal to the deprivation suffered by
the rightful person and also considering how long they have compelled the other side to
contest and defend the litigation in various courts. In appropriate cases, the Courts may
consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity
of judicial proceedings. The parties raise fanciful claims and contests because the Courts are
reluctant to order prosecution. The relevant judgments in support of this preposition are as
under:-
22.2 In Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249, the Supreme Court has
held that the Courts have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and have to be realistic
in imposing the costs. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced
hereunder:-
“52. …C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and or ordering prosecution
would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and
forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would
also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases the courts
may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity
and sanctity of judicial proceedings. …
***
54. While imposing costs we have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and be
realistic what the Defendants or the Respondents had to actually incur in contesting
the litigation before different courts. We have to also broadly take into consideration
the prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and other miscellaneous expenses which
have to be incurred towards drafting and filing of the counter affidavit, miscellaneous
charges towards typing, photocopying, court fee etc.
55. The other factor which should not be forgotten while imposing costs is for how
long the Defendants or Respondents were compelled to contest and defend the
litigation in various courts. The Appellants in the instant case have harassed the
Respondents to the hilt for four decades in a totally frivolous and dishonest litigation
in various courts. The Appellants have also wasted judicial time of the various courts
for the last 40 years.
56. On consideration of totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not
find any infirmity in the well reasoned impugned order/judgment. These appeals are
consequently dismissed with costs, which we quantify as Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two
lakhs only). We are imposing the costs not out of anguish but by following the
fundamental principle that wrongdoers should not get benefit out of frivolous
litigation.”
(Emphasis supplied)
22.3 In Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria, (2012) 5 SCC 370,
the Supreme Court held that heavy costs and prosecution should be ordered in cases of false
claims and defences as under:-
“82. This Court in a recent judgment in Ramrameshwari Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249,
aptly observed at p. 266, para 43 that unless wrongdoers are denied profit from
frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to prevent it. In order to curb uncalled for and
DLSH010074192024 Page 16 of 17
CR No. 223/2025Kapil Arora Vs. CGST – North
frivolous litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for
uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that the court’s otherwise
scarce time is consumed or more appropriately, wasted in a large number of uncalled
for cases. In this very judgment, the Court provided that this problem can be solved or
at least can be minimised if exemplary costs is imposed for instituting frivolous
litigation. The Court observed at pp. 267-68, para 58 that imposition of actual,
realistic or proper costs and/or ordering prosecution in appropriate cases would go a
long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and
fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control
unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases, the courts may
consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and
sanctity of judicial proceedings.”
(Emphasis supplied)
22.4 In Padmawati v. Harijan Sewak Sangh, 154 (2008) DLT 411, this Court imposed costs of
Rs.15.1 lakhs and noted as under:
“6. The case at hand shows that frivolous defences and frivolous litigation is a
calculated venture involving no risks situation. You have only to engage professionals
to prolong the litigation so as to deprive the rights of a person and enjoy the fruits of
illegalities. I consider that in such cases where Court finds that using the Courts as a
tool, a litigant has perpetuated illegalities or has perpetuated an illegal possession, the
Court must impose costs on such litigants which should be equal to the benefits
derived by the litigant and harm and deprivation suffered by the rightful person so as
to check the frivolous litigation and prevent the people from reaping a rich harvest of
illegal acts through the Courts. One of the aim of every judicial system has to be to
discourage unjust enrichment using Courts as a tool. The costs imposed by the Courts
must in all cases should be the real costs equal to deprivation suffered by the rightful
person.
***
9. Before parting with this case, I consider it necessary to pen down that one of the
reasons for over-flowing of court dockets is the frivolous litigation in which the
Courts are engaged by the litigants and which is dragged as long as possible. Even if
these litigants ultimately loose the lis, they become the real victors and have the last
laugh. This class of people who perpetuate illegal acts by obtaining stays and
injunctions from the Courts must be made to pay the sufferer not only the entire illegal
gains made by them as costs to the person deprived of his right and also must be
burdened with exemplary costs. Faith of people in judiciary can only be sustained if
the persons on the right side of the law do not feel that even if they keep fighting for
justice in the Court and ultimately win, they would turn out to be a fool since winning
a case after 20 or 30 years would make wrong doer as real gainer, who had reaped the
benefits for all those years. Thus, it becomes the duty of the Courts to see that such
wrong doers are discouraged at every step and even if they succeed in prolonging the
litigation due to their money power, ultimately they must suffer the costs of all these
years long litigation. Despite settled legal positions, the obvious wrong doers, use one
after another tier of judicial review mechanism as a gamble, knowing fully well that
dice is always loaded in their favour, since even if they lose, the time gained is the real
DLSH010074192024 Page 17 of 17
CR No. 223/2025Kapil Arora Vs. CGST – North
gain. This situation must be redeemed by the Courts.” (Emphasis supplied)”
Order
33. Considering the totality of circumstances and frivolous nature of litigation, I deem it
appropriate that the instant revision not only deserves to be dismissed but the
revisionist also deserves to be saddled with the cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand).
The revisionist in the instant matter is therefore, directed to deposit a sum of
Rs.10,000/- with Prime Minister Relief Fund within seven days from the date of the
instant order and the receipt thereof be deposited with the Ld. Trial Court, failing
which Ld. Trial Court is requested to initiate appropriate recovery proceedings against
the revisionist.
34. With these observations, the present revision stands dismissed.
35. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
36. TCR, if any, be sent back along with copy of this judgment.
Digitally signed by
SAURABH SAURABH PARTAP SINGH
Announced in the open Court PARTAP LALER
on 9th June 2025
Date: 2025.06.09 17:51:58
SINGH LALER +0530
(Saurabh Partap Singh Laler)
ASJ-05 New Delhi
Patiala House Courts
Delhi/9.6.2025.
[ad_1]
Source link