Delhi District Court
State vs Raja on 12 July, 2025
State v. Raja
IN THE COURT OF SH. VAIBHAV MEHTA,
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (SOUTH DISTRICT),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State versus Raja
FIR No. 540/20
PS Ambedkar Nagar
U/s- 33 Delhi Excise Act.
JUDGMENT
1 Serial No. of the case : 7692/2021 2 Date of commission : 06.08.2020 3 Date of institution of the case : 20.09.2021 4 Name of complainant : Ct. Jauni 5 Name of accused : Raja S/o Sh. Krishappa, R/o H. No. H-1st, 247, Madangir, New Delhi. 6 Offence complained of : U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act 7 Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty 8 Arguments heard on : 12.07.2025 9 Final order : Acquitted 10 Date of judgment : 12.07.2025 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on FIR No. 540/2020 PS: Ambedkar Nagar 1 of 7 State v. Raja 06.08.2020 at about 10.00 PM infront of H. No. H-I/247, Madangir, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Ambedkar Nagar, accused was found in possession of 106 quarter bottles of illicit liquor having label of "Asli Santra Masaledar Deshi Sharab" for sale in Haryana. Accordingly the FIR u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act was registered against the accused.
CHARGE
2. Prima facie case of commission of offence under Section 33 of Delhi Excise Act was made out against the accused and charge was framed upon the accused on 20.10.2022 wherein he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
ADMISSION U/S 294 Cr.PC
3. During the course of evidence, statement of accused was recorded under section 294 Cr.PC wherein he did not dispute the identity of certain documents and admitted the same in terms of section 294 Cr.P.C. Accused had admitted the following document:
(i) Copy of FIR as Ex.P/A/1;
(ii) GD No. 124A dated 06.08.2020 as Ex. P/A/2;
(iii) RC No. 213/21/2020 Ex.P/A/3;
(iv) Result of analysis from Excise Laboratory dated 28.10.2020 as Ex.P/A/4.
FIR No. 540/2020 PS: Ambedkar Nagar 2 of 7 State v. Raja EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION
4. The prosecution has examined 02 witnesses.
PROSECUTION WITNESS
PW1 HC Jauni Complainant
PW2 ASI Upender Kumar IO of the case
5. Prosecution has relied upon the following documents:-
Exhibited Contents Exhibits
by
PW1 Statement PW1/A
Seizure memo of illicit liquor PW1/B
Seal Handing over memo PW1/C
Disclosure statement of accused PW1/D
Arrest memo and personal search PW1/E and
memo PW1/F
Case property Ex.P1
Photographs Ex.P2
PW2 Rukka PW2/1
Site plan PW2/2
6. PW1 HC Jauni deposed that on 06.08.2020, at about 10 PM, he reached in front of H-1/247 where he saw that one person was pulling one heavy katta and he was taking it inside his house after which he had stopped that person and asked about the material in the katta but he did not give any satisfactory answer, so it created suspicion in his mind. PW1 stated that the person disclosed his name as Raja after which he checked the katta and found illicit liquor in it and gave information with regard to FIR No. 540/2020 PS: Ambedkar Nagar 3 of 7 State v. Raja the recovery of illicit liquor to DO in PS. PW 1 further deposed that thereafter, HC Upender came at the spot and he handed over illicit liquor and the custody of the accused to the IO after which IO had asked 3-4 public persons to join the investigation of the present case but nobody joined the same and left the spot but no notice was served to anyone due to lack of time after which IO recorded his statement proved as Ex. PW1/A. PW 1 stated that thereafter, IO checked the katta and counted the quarter bottles of illicit liquor and found 106 bottles of make Asli Satrangi Santra Masaledar Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only measuring 180 ML each and took out one bottle as sample and kept the remaining bottles in the same katta and sealed the sample as well as katta with the seal of 'UK' and filled the form M-29. PW 1 deposed that IO had marked katta as serial no.1 and sample as serial no. 1A after which IO seized the illicit liquor vide memo Ex. PW1/B and also prepared the seal handing over memo Ex. PW1/C and further prepared the rukka and got the FIR registered through him. PW 1 also stated that during investigation, IO prepared the site plan and interrogated the accused and recorded the disclosure statement of the accused proved as Ex. PW1/D and after interrogation IO arrested the accused and conducted personal search proved as Ex. PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F and deposited case property in Malkhana. PW1 identified the sample case property as Ex. P1 and also stated that case property of the present case has already been destroyed and the kattas were correctly identified by the witness through photographs. PW1 also identified the case property as Ex. P-2.
7. PW2 ASI Upender Kumar deposed on the same lines as FIR No. 540/2020 PS: Ambedkar Nagar 4 of 7 State v. Raja PW1. He further deposed that he prepared rukka proved as Ex.PW2/1 and thereafter prepared the site plan proved as Ex.PW2/2.
8. Thereafter, PE was closed on 03.06.2025.
EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.
9. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded on 12.07.2025 separately and he opted not to lead defence evidence and the matter was listed for final arguments.
10. Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, provides that the hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty shall be entered vide a separate entry and this entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal. In the present case, no departure or the arrival entry has been proved on the record by the prosecution and in absence of the departure and arrival entry of the police officials their presence at the spot cannot be believed. Reference can be made to on Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29.
11. In the case in hand, the seizure memo of the illicit liquor was FIR No. 540/2020 PS: Ambedkar Nagar 5 of 7 State v. Raja prepared before registration of FIR. However, admittedly the seizure memo Ex. PW1/B contains the FIR number on the same, but there is no explanation furnished by prosecution, as to how and under what circumstances, the same has appeared. Further, no photographs were taken by the IO showing that the accused was in possession of illicit liquor. The same causes reasonable doubt in the prosecution story as held in the judgment of Giri Raj Vs. State 83 (200) DELHI LAW TIMES 201, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held in Para 5 as :
"The prosecution has not offered any explanation whatsoever as to under what circumstances number of the FIR Ex.PW2/A had appeared on the top of the said documents, which were allegedly on the spot before its registration. This give rise to two inferences that either the FIR (Ex.PW2/a) was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the contraband or number of the said FIR was inserted in these documents after its registration. In both the situation, it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a good deal of doubt about recovery of the contraband in the manner alleged by the prosecution. That being so, the benefit arising out of such a situation must necessarily go to the appellant". The same view was adopted in the case of Mohd. Hashim. Appellant Vs. State 2000 CRI.L.J. 15010 Pawan Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration, 1987 CCC 585 and Mewa Ram Vs. State 200 CRI.L.J.114.
FIR No. 540/2020 PS: Ambedkar Nagar 6 of 7 State v. Raja
12. In the present case, as per PW-1 and PW-2, public persons were requested by them to join the investigation, but none of them agreed. However, no written notice was served upon them to join the proceedings in the present case or to face action U/sec 187 IPC. Therefore, it is clear that sincere efforts were not made by the IO to join the independent witnesses despite their availability which causes a serious dent in the story of the prosecution. The reliance is placed on Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana 199 (1) C.L.R. 69 and Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crime 55.
13. Therefore in view of aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that the story of prosecution that the accused Raja was carrying the illicit liquor has come under cloud and accused deserves benefit of doubt. Accordingly, accused Raja stands acquitted for offence under section 33 of Delhi Excise Act.
14. For the reasons mentioned above, this court acquits the accused Raja for offence u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act. Accused is directed to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds under Section 437-A Digitally signed by VAIBHAV Cr.PC. MEHTA VAIBHAV Date:
MEHTA 2025.07.12
15:59:24
+0530
Announced in the open (VAIBHAV MEHTA)
court on 12.07.2025 CJM, South District
Saket Courts, New Delhi
FIR No. 540/2020 PS: Ambedkar Nagar 7 of 7