Electronic devices seized in investigations must be copied and preserved for evidence to ensure admissibility in legal proceedings.

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petitions have been filed by the Petitioners - Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Vibhuti Bhushan Das under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Respondent to Signature Not Verified Signed By:MANJEET W.P.(C) 11518/2024 & connected orders Page 1 of 5 release the electronic devices of the Petitioners.

3. The Respondent-Directorateof Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter ‘DRI’) received intelligence in respect of smuggling of substantial quantity of foreign origin gold in a completely concealed manner through triangular valves.

4. Upon intelligence being received, in May 2022, the DRI took action and seized the goods. The freight forwarding was handled by M/s ECG Easy Connect Logistics Pvt. Ltd of which the Petitioners are the Directors.

5. The statement of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act , 1962. Various devices are stated to have been seized from the Petitioner, details of which are as under:

i) One Mobile Phone-Realme EMX1921, IMEI No.86267204774114 and IMEI862672047741106 [Mobile No. 9871880949]

ii) One Mobile Phone-Samsung Galaxy A50S, IMEI No. 351595119911042/01 and 351596119911040/01 [Mobile No.

9999571058]

6. Further, while in the course of recording of the statement of Mr. Vibhuti Bhushan Das under Section 108 of the Customs Act , 1962, one mobile phone of the said Petitioner has been seized. The said device is described as under :

i) One Mobile Phone- HUAWEI make, Model No. FLA- AL20, MEI No. 869495033588064 & 869495033649403 [Mobile No. 9910058338 ]

7. The case of the Petitioners is that since now the investigation has been concluded and show cause notices have been issued, the devices Signature Not Verified Signed By:MANJEET W.P.(C) 11518/2024 & connected orders Page 2 of 5 ought to be released to the Petitioners. Hence, the prayer is for release of the electronic devices.

8. On behalf of the Petitioners, Mr. Maggu, ld. Counsel submits that the devices were submitted at the time of the recording of statements and the Petitioners have no objection if the data on the devices is fully copied by the Department.

9. On behalf of the Respondent, Mr. Ojha, ld. Counsel submits that the devices have been cloned, however, in view of objections which could be raised in respect of mode of proof and admissibility at the time when adjudication takes place, the devices have been retained. It is also submitted by Mr. Ojha, ld. Counsel that the Department is in the process of filing prosecutioncomplaints against the Petitioners.

10. The mode and manner of proving electronic data is well- established both under statutes as also in several judgments. Some guidance also exists in the Delhi High Court(OriginalSide) Rules, 2018which stipulates that electronic documents can be filed as under:

“24. Reception of electronic evidence - A party seeking to tender any electronic record shall do so in a CD/ DVD/ Medium, encrypted with a hash value, the details of which shall be disclosed in a separate memorandum, signed by the party in the form of an affidavit. This will be tendered along with the encrypted CD/ DVD/ Medium in the Registry...”

11. For the said purpose the Respondent may make a proper copy of the data from the mobile phones on a CD/Pen Drive and a hash value may be added to preserve the integrity of the data. The said data can then be furnished at the appropriate stage to the concerned Court or in the show Signature Not Verified Signed By:MANJEET W.P.(C) 11518/2024 & connected orders Page 3 of 5 cause proceedings, in accordance with law.

12. In order to obviate any objections on behalf of the Petitioners in respect of the data which is copied, the Petitioners may appear before the Respondent and the data may be verified when the