Delhi District Court
State vs 1 Manoj 2 Hemant on 3 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANSI MALIK
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-02
(CENTRAL DISTRICT), TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
Case No. 293470/2016
CNR No. DLCT02-002709-2014
FIR No. 76/2014
PS - Gulabi Bagh
State Vs. Manoj & Ors.
JUDGMENT
(a) Case No. 293470/2016
(b) Date of offence 04.05.2014
(c) Complainant HC Raj Kumar
R/o B.No.1187/N, PS Gulabi Bagh,
Delhi
(d) Accused (1) Manoj, S/o Sh. Chandermani,
Village Kanondha, Teh.
Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar,
Haryana.
(2) Hemant Kumar, S/o Sh. Kishan
Kumar, R/o Plot No.1, Gali No.15,
A-Block, Dass Garden, Mangal
Bazar Road, Baprola Vihar, Delhi.
(e) Offence U/s 33/52(2) Delhi Excise Act
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded Not Guilty
(g) Final Order Acquittal
(h) Date of Institution 13.08.2014
(I) Date when judgment was 06.01.2026
reserved
(j) Date of judgment 03.02.2026
FIR No. 76/2014 State Vs Manoj etc. PS: Gulabi Bagh Page No.1 /25
Digitally
signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.02.03
16:57:36
+0530
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution is that on 04.05.2014 at about 09:00 PM at Road no.40, near metro pillar no. 94, Ram Bagh Road, Bagichi Peerji, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Gulabi Bagh, accused Manoj was found in possession of one car bearing registration no. DL-4CM-9325 containing 26 peti (boxes) of liquors and in each peti there were 48 quarter bottles of liquor of different brands, without having any requisite licence or permit and thereby accused Manoj is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 33 Delhi Excise Act and within the cognizance of this Court. Further, accused Hemant Kumar, being the owner of the aforesaid car had allowed the same to be used for transportation of the aforesaid liquor and thereby accused Hemant Kumar is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 33 r/w 52(2) Delhi Excise Act and within the cognizance of this Court.
2. On the basis of the chargesheet, charge of offence U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act was framed against accused Manoj and charge of offence U/s Section 33 r/w 52(2) Delhi Excise Act was framed against accused Hemant Kumar and the charge was duly explained to them in vernacular to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 21.08.2015. Thus, the matter was put to trial.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE FIR No. 76/2014 State Vs Manoj etc. PS: Gulabi Bagh Page No.2 /25 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI Date:
MALIK MALIK 2026.02.03 16:57:42 +0530
3. In order to prove the above said allegations against the accused persons, the prosecution examined nine witnesses in total.
4. PW1/Ct. Manoj Kumar deposed that on 04.05.2014, he was posted as Constable at PS Gulabi Bagh. That on the same date, his duty hours were from 10:00am to 10:00pm. That he alongwith HC Raj Kumar was on patrolling duty at Road no. 40, Bagichi Peerji. While patrolling, they reached at road no. 40, metro pillar no. 94 and saw that one person was sitting inside Honda City Car bearing no. DL-4CM-9325. That on seeing them the accused immediately started the abovesaid car and on suspicion, they stopped abovesaid car and asked reason for his behavior but he could not give any satisfactory answer regarding the same, on which they checked abovesaid car and found abovesaid car was containing illicit liquor. That thereafter, they informed about the incident to Duty Officer through wireless set, on which IO/ASI Sanjay Kumar came at the spot. That they handed over abovesaid accused and car to IO for further course of action. That the IO conducted formal search and he recovered illicit liquor from abovesaid car and requested 4 to 5 public persons to join the investigation but none of them joined the investigation and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. That no legal action was taken by the IO against the public persons who refused to join the investigation due to paucity of time. That thereafter, IO took out all 26 cartons of illicit liquor from abovesaid car and IO gave srl. no. A to Z to abovesaid 26 cartons. That there were 1248 quarter bottles in abovesaid 26 cartons. Sr. A to J cartons were FIR No. 76/2014 State Vs Manoj etc. PS: Gulabi Bagh Page No.3 /25 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2026.02.03 16:57:48 +0530 containing 48 quarter bottles in each cartons, "Rasila Santara Desi Sharab", for sale in Haryana Only NV Group etc. was written on abovesaid quarter bottles in A to J marked cartons. That Sr. No. 1 to 480 was given to all illicit quarter bottles. That Sr. no. K to T cartons were containing illicit liquor on which "Besto Whiskey" was written. That on counting abovesaid cartons were containing 480 illicit liquor quarter bottles. That IO gave sr. 481 to 960 to the quarter bottles of illicit liquor contained in cartons bearing Sr. no. K to T and that abovesaid cartons were containing 48 quarter bottles in each carton. He also deposed that Sr. U to Z cartons were containing 48 quarter bottles in each cartons and that IO took out all 288 quarter bottles from abovesaid cartons. That "Party Special Deluxe Whiskey etc." was written on abovesaid quarter bottles and IO gave sr. no. 961 to 1248. That the IO took out first and last quarter bottle from each carton as sample and same was sealed with the seal of SK and IO kept abovesaid quarter bottles in abovesaid cartons. That thereafter, IO kept abovesaid cartons in white katta and same were sealed with the seal of SK. That thereafter, IO seized abovesaid illicit liquor and sample vide seizure memo, same is already Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. That thereafter, IO handed over abovesaid seal to HC Raj Kumar vide handing over memo, same is already Ex.PW1/B bearing his signature at point A and IO also seized abovesaid car vide seizure memo, same is Ex.PW1/C bearing his signature at point A. That the IO recorded statement of HC Raj Kumar and also filled form M-29. That the IO handed over a rukka to HC Raj Kumar for registration of FIR and HC Raj Kumar came back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and tehri and handed over to IO. That the IO had FIR No. 76/2014 State Vs Manoj etc. PS: Gulabi Bagh Page No.4 /25 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI Date:
MALIK MALIK 2026.02.03 16:57:53 +0530 written case particulars on case property and had put the case particulars upon the seizure memo. That the IO prepared the site plan at the instance of HC Raj Kumar and arrested accused Mano vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D bearing the signature of the witness at point A. That the Personal search of accused Manoj was conducted vide search memo Ex.PW1/E bearing the signature of the witness at point A. That the IO also recorded disclosure statement of accused Manoj which is Ex.PW1/F bearing the signature of the witness at point A. That thereafter they returned to police station and the IO deposited the case property in the malkhana and accused was put behind the bars. The witness correctly identified the accused in Court and also identified the car bearing No. DL-4CM-9325 through the photographs on record, which are Ex.P1 (Colly). The witness also identified the case property through the photographs on record which are Ex.P2. The order of the Ld. court to deposit the case property with the office of District Nazir for disposal of the same was also produced, which is Ex.P3. PW-1 was duly cross-
examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
5. PW-2/Ct. Srikant deposed that on 07.05.2014, he was posted as Ct. with PS Gulabi Bagh. That on that day, on the instructions of the IO, he took the samples from the malkhana and deposited the same with the Excise Laboratory, ITO, Delhi vide RC No. 23/21/14. That after depositing the same, he handed over the receipt to the MHCM. That The seals upon samples were not tampered with during his possession. PW-2 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
FIR No. 76/2014 State Vs Manoj etc. PS: Gulabi Bagh Page No.5 /25Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2026.02.03 16:57:57 +0530
6. PW-3/Sh. Paramjeet Singh deposed that he resides at Flat No. 376, Paschim Vihar, Delhi with his family. That on 25.05.2012, he had sold his car Honda City bearing no. DL-4CM-9325 to Ravinder Kumar, S/o Sh. Mukhtar Singh, R/o Village Bakkarwala, Delhi. That he also took delivery receipt from Ravinder Kumar and handed over the same to the IO and IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/A bearing his signatures at point-A. The said delivery receipt is Ex. PW-3/B bearing his signatures at Point-A. PW-3 was duly cross- examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
7. PW-4/Retd. ASI Amrik Singh deposed that in the intervening night of 04-05.05.2014, he was posted as Duty Officer at PS Gulabi Bagh. That his duty hours were 12.00 midnight to 08.15 AM and at about 01.15 PM, a rukka was received by him through HC Raj Kumar for getting the case registered. That on the basis of rukka, he registered the case vide FIR No. 76/14 which is a computer generated and was typed verbatim under his supervision and one original copy of the print out was taken out and the same has been placed in the FIR register. That the photocopy of FIR, which is placed in the judicial file is true and correct copy of the original and the same is already Ex. PW4/A (OSR) bearing his signature at point A. That the copy of FIR alongwith original rukka was handed over to HC Raj Kumar for further investigation and he also made endorsement on original rukka, which is Ex. PW4/B bearing his signature at point A. He also prepared the certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act for the authenticity of the FIR, which is already Ex.
FIR No. 76/2014 State Vs Manoj etc. PS: Gulabi Bagh Page No.6 /25Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI Date:
MALIK MALIK 2026.02.03 16:58:02 +0530 PW4/C bearing his signature at point A. PW-4 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
8. PW-5/ASI Naresh Kumar deposed that on 04.05.2014, he was posted as HC at PS Gulabi Bagh and his duty hours were from 04:00 pm to 12:00 midnight. That on that day, at around 09.10 pm, HC Raj Kumar informed in the PS through wireless set that one person whose name revealed as Manoj alongwith illicit liquor in a vehicle bearing No. DL-4CM-9325 had been apprehended near Metro Pillar No. 94, Road No. 40, Pratap Nagar and HC Raj Kumar asked him to send an IO at the spot of incident. That he marked that call to ASI Sanjay Kumar after informing the same to SHO concerned. The said DD No. 26A dated 04.05.2014 is already Ex. PW5/A bearing his signature at point A. The witness had also brought the original rojnarncha register and the photocopy of the rojnamcha was compared with the original rojnamcha register is already Ex. PW5/B (OSR). PW-5 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
9. PW-6/Ct. Kalu Ram @ Kartik deposed that on 04.05.2014, he was posted as Ct. at PS Gulabi Bagh and his duty hours were from 04:00pm to 12:00 midnight. That on that day, at around 05.35pm, he made departure entry for area patrolling of Ct. Naveen for beat No. 1, Ct. Srikant for beat No. 2, HC Raj Kumar, Ct. Ashwani, Ct. Manoj and Ct. Naresh for beat No. 3. The said DD No. 47B is Ex. PW6/A. The witness also produced the original rojnamcha register and the photocopy of the rojnamcha was compared with the original rojnamcha register Ex.
FIR No. 76/2014 State Vs Manoj etc. PS: Gulabi Bagh Page No.7 /25Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2026.02.03 16:58:06 +0530 PW6/B (OSR). PW-6 was not cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity given.
10. PW-7/Ramesh Bedi deposed that on 07.05.2014, he was posted as Assistant Chemical Examiner at Excise Control Laboratory, L- Block, Vikas Bhawan, ITO, Delhi. On that day, 52 sealed samples with the seal of SK alongwith filled Form M-29 in connection with FIR No. 76/14 dated 05.05.2014 with the seizure No. SZD003746-SZD003797 were received in the office and the samples were allotted to him for analysis. That he had deposited his report after analysis on 19.05.2014 under the supervision of Sh. Vijender Singh, Dy. Chemical Examiner, which is Ex. PW7/A bearing his signatures at point A. PW-7 was not cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity given.
11. PW-8/Bijender Singh, Retd. Chemical Examiner deposed that on 07.05.2014, he was posted as Dy. Chemical Examiner at Excise Control Laboratory, L-Block, Vikas Bhawan, ITO, Delhi. That on that day, 52 sealed samples with the seal of SK along with filled Form M-29 in connection with FIR No. 76/14 dated 05.05.2014 with the seizure No. SZD003746-SZD003797 were received in the office mentioned above and the samples were allotted to Ramesh Bedi for analysis. That Sh. Ramesh Bedi deposited his report after analysis on 19.05.2014 under his supervision, which is already Ex. PW7/A bearing his signatures at point B. PW-8 was not cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity given.
FIR No. 76/2014 State Vs Manoj etc. PS: Gulabi Bagh Page No.8 /25Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2026.02.03 16:58:10 +0530
12. PW-9/ASI Pramod Tyagi deposed that on the day of the incident, he was posted as a Constable at EIB, L-Block, Vikas Bhawan, ITO, Delhi. That he received secret information regarding the appearance of the accused, Manoj, who was expected to arrive in a silver Honda City (registration no. DL4CM 9325) containing illicit liquor at Pillar No. 94, Road No. 40, Pratap Nagar. That upon reaching the spot, he found that the local police had already apprehended the accused and sealed the illicit liquor. He informed the Investigating Officer (IO), ASI Sanjay, regarding the information, and the IO recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr. PC. The witness correctly identified the accused in Court. PW-9 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
13. PW-10/Retd. SI Sanjay Kumar deposed that on 04.05.2014, he was posted as an ASI with PS Gulabi Bagh. That at 9:10 PM, he received DD No. 26A regarding the apprehension of illicit liquor at Rambagh Road. That at the spot, he met HC Rajkumara nd Ct. Manojn who handed over the accused Manoj, who was in possession of a silver Honda City (DL4CM 9325) filled with illicit liquor. That he recorded the statement of HC Rajkumar and found 26 cartons in the car and gave them serial no. A to Z. That he checked those cartons and found "Maseladar Santra Desi Sharab" having 48 quarter bottles of said desi sharab in the cartons having srl. no.A to J, the said quarter bottles were labeled to be for sale in Haryana only. That the rest of the cartons having 48 quarter bottles (180 ml) of "Besto Whiskey" for sale in Arunachal Pradesh only, the serial no. of these cartons were K to T. That the rest of FIR No. 76/2014 State Vs Manoj etc. PS: Gulabi Bagh Page No.9 /25 Digitally signed MANSI by MANSI MALIK MALIK 2026.02.03 Date:
16:58:15 +0530 the cartons having 48 quarter bottles (180 ml) of "Deluxe Whiskey" for sale in Arunachal Pradesh only, the serial no. of these cartons were U to Z. That he took two quarter bottles from each carton as samples, kept them in a separate pulanda, and sealed them with the seal of "SK". That he filled FORM M29 at the spot in triplicate and the seal after use was handed over to HC Rajkumar. That he seized the pulandas vide seizure memo i.e. Ex.PW1/A and prepared seal handing over memo i.e. Ex.PW1/B and he also seized the vehicle vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. That he prepared the rukka (Ex.PW10/A) and handed over the same to HC Rajkumar for registration of FIR and after sometime, HC Rajkumar returned to the spot with the original rukka and copy of FIR. That he completed the seizure memo (Ex.PW10/B) by putting the FIR No. and case particulars upon the same. That he also prepared site plan which is Ex. PW-10/B and arrested Manoj vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D. That the personal search of accused Manoj was done vide search memo Ex. PW-1/E and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex. PW-1/F. Thereafter, they returned to PS and deposited the case property in malkhana and the accused was put behind bars after medical examination. That the accused was produced before Court and his PC remand was taken to obtain the source of liquor and to trace the owner of the offending vehicle. He also recorded the supplementary disclosure statement of accused, which are Ex. PW-10/C & Ex. PW-10/D and accused was sent to JC. Later, he traced the last owner of the car, Hemant Kumar, and arrested him vide arrest memo i.e. Ex.PW10/E and also personally searched him vide mmeo Ex. PW-10/F. The disclosure statement of accused Hemant was also recorded which is Ex. PW-10/G FIR No. 76/2014 State Vs Manoj etc. PS: Gulabi Bagh Page No.10 /25 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI Date:
MALIK MALIK 2026.02.03 16:58:19 +0530 and the said accused was produced before Court and sent to JC. That HC Rajkuamr returned the seal to him and seal handing over memo was prepared which is Ex. PW-10/H. During investigation, samples were sent to Excise Control Laboratory and result of the same was collected and placed on record. That he collected the RC of the vehicle (MARK PW10/A) and filed the chargesheet after completion of investigation. The witness stated that he can identify the case property if shown to him. The photographs of the said property are already Ex.P1 (colly), Ex.P2 and P3. Both the accused persons were correctly identified by the witness in Court. PW-10 was duly cross-examined by ld. counsel for accused.
14. PW-11/Sh. Ravinder Kumar stated that he resides at H. No 12, Village Bakkarwala, Delhi and previously ran a milk business. He had purchased the silver Honda City (DL 4CM 9325) on 25.05.2012 from Paramjeet Singh and had obtained a delivery receipt. However, on 05.08.2013, he sold the car to his cousin, Vinay Kumar, along with the documents he had received from the original owner. That the IO recorded his statement. PW-11 was not cross-examined despite opportunity given.
15. PW-12/Vinay Kumar stated that he resides at H. No 151, Village Bakkarwala, Delhi with his family and he is working in DTC.
That on 05.08.2013, he purchased the car No. DL4CM 9325 (Honda City-Golden Colour) from Ravinder who was his cousin and sold the said car on 19.03.2014 to Hemant for Rs. 60,000/- vide stamp paper No. FIR No. 76/2014 State Vs Manoj etc. PS: Gulabi Bagh Page No.11 /25 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2026.02.03 16:58:24 +0530 IN-DL35008121341674M. That the said notarized stamp alongwith affidavit is on record which is Ex. PW12/A bearing his signature at point A, B & C on two pages and that of accused Hemant at point D & E. That he was not aware whether the said car was got transferred by accused Hemant through RTO or not. However, the said car was under
possession of accused Hemant since 19.03.2014 and he was its owner. That the delivery receipt of the above said car bearing his name at point A dated 05.08.2013 is Ex. PW12/B. He stated that he can identify the said car if shown to him and that he can also identify the accused persons if shown to him. However, identity of accused Hemant and Manoj was not disputed during the recording of the evidence by the counsel for the accused persons. That photographs of the said car Ex. P1 (colly) were shown to the witness who correctly identified the said car as the one purchased from Ravinder and sold to accused Hemant on 19.03.2014. PW-12 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
16. PW-13/ASI Raj Kumar Singh deposed that on 04.05.2014, he was posted as HC with PS Gulabi Bagh. That on that day, he along with Ct. Manoj were on patrolling duty and they reached Ram Bagh Road No.40, near Metro Pillar No.94, Bagichi Peerji. That at about 9.00 pm, they saw one Honda City Car having Registration no.
DL-4CM-9325 was stationed near Metro Pillar No.94. That the said driver after seeing them started the above said car and on suspicion, they stopped him and asked about his trying to run away but he could not give any satisfactory answer, they checked the car and found illicit liquor in the said car. That they informed in the PS to the DO through wireless FIR No. 76/2014 State Vs Manoj etc. PS: Gulabi Bagh Page No.12 /25 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2026.02.03 16:58:28 +0530 set and IO/ASI Sanjay came to the spot and they handed over said person whose name was revealed as Manoj and recovered liquor to the IO. That the IO requested 4-5 public persons to join the raiding team and investigation but none agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses citing their valid reasons. That due to paucity of time, no written notice was given to the public persons. Thereafter, upon checking, they found 26 cartons of illicit liquor. That the IO gave them Sr. No. A to Z. Cartons bearing Sr. no. A to J were containing 48 quarter bottles of 180 ml each of Raseela Santra Desi Sarab for sale in Haryana only. That the IO gave them Sr. No. 1 to 480 and the cartons bearing Sr. no. K to T were containing 48 quarter bottles of 180 ml each of Besto Whiskey for sale in Arunachal Pradesh only. That the IO gave them Sr. No. 481 to 960 and theCartons bearing Sr. no. U to Z were containing 48 quarter bottles of 180 ml each of Party Special Delux Whiskey for sale in Arunachal Pradesh only and IO gave them Sr. No. 961 to 1248. That the IO took out two quarter bottles as samples from each carton and gave them Sr. no. 1 to 48, 49 to 96, 97 to 144 respectively. That the IO kept the same in the same cartons and prepared pullandas by sealing the same with the seal of "SK" and seized the pullandas vide Seizure Memo which is Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at point C. Thereafter, IO handed over seal to him and prepared seal handing over memo which is already Ex.PW1/B bearing his signatures at point C and IO also filled M-29 in triplicate at the spot. Thereafter IO recorded his statement which is Ex. PW-13/A bearing his signatures at point A. That the IO prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. That after sometime, he returned to the spot with original rukka and copy of FIR FIR No. 76/2014 State Vs Manoj etc. PS: Gulabi Bagh Page No.13 /25 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2026.02.03 16:58:33 +0530 and handed over the same to IO. That the IO completed the seizure memo and prepared documents by putting FIR number upon the same. That the IO also seized said car vide Seizure Memo which is already Ex.PW1/C bearing his signatures at point C and prepared site plan at his instance. That the IO arrested accused Manoj vide Arrest memo which is Ex.PW1/D bearing his signatures at point C and the personal search of accused Manoj was conducted vide Search Memo which is Ex.PW1/E bearing his signatures at point C. That the IO also recorded disclosure statement of accused Manoj which is Ex.PW1/F bearing his signatures at point C. Thereafter, they returned to PS and the IO deposited the case property in the malkhana and the accused Manoj was produced before Hon'ble Court from where he was taken on police remand. That on 05.05.2014, accused Manoj was taken to Kharkhoda in search of co-
accused but all in vain. That on 10.05.2014, he returned the seal of 'SK' to the IO and IO prepared seal taking over memo, which is Ex.PW13/B bearing his signatures at point A. That on 30.05.2014, he along with the IO and Ct. Rajender went to Gali no.15, A Block, Dass Garden, Bapdola Vihar, Delhi where they met with the accused Hemant Kumar and IO arrested accused Hemant Kumar vide Arrest Memo which is Ex.PW10/E bearing his signatures at point B. That the personal search of accused Hemant Kumar was conducted vide personal search memo which is Ex.PW10/F bearing his signatures at point B and the IO also recorded disclosure statement of the accused which is Ex.PW10/G bearing his signatures at point B. Thereafter, they returned to PS and the IO recorded his statement. The witness stated that he can identify the case property, if shown to him. The case property is already Ex.P-1 (colly), P-2 and P-3.
FIR No. 76/2014 State Vs Manoj etc. PS: Gulabi Bagh Page No.14 /25Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2026.02.03 16:58:38 +0530 The witness also correctly identified both the accused persons in Court. PW-13 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
17. As all witnesses were examined by the Prosecution, PE was closed vide order dated 22.07.2024. Statements of the accused persons were recorded on 12.08.2024 wherein they stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present matter. The accused persons opted not to lead any defence evidence and the matter was listed for final arguments.
Final arguments were heard on 06.01.2026.
18. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.
REASONS FOR DECISION
19. Short point for determination before the court is as under -
"Whether on 04.05.2014 at about 09:00 PM, at Road No. 40, Near Metro Pillar No. 94, Ram Bagh Road, Bagichi Peerji, Gulabi bagh, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Gulabi Bagh, accused Manoj was found in possession one car bearing no. DL-4CM-9325 containing illicit lliquor, without any license or permit. Further, whether accused Hemant Kumar had allowed using of the aforesaid car on the date and time mentioned for the transportation of abovesaid ilicit liqour?"
20. It is argued by Ld. APP for the state that from the ocular and documentary evidence on record, prosecution has proved beyond FIR No. 76/2014 State Vs Manoj etc. PS: Gulabi Bagh Page No.15 /25 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2026.02.03 16:58:43 +0530 reasonable doubt that accused Manoj was found in possession of a car containing illicit liquor without permit and submitted that he be convicted of the offence charged. Further, it is also argued that accused Hemant Kumar permitted the use of his car for transportation of abovesaid illicit liquor and that he also be convicted of the offence charged.
21. Per contra, it is argued by the Ld. counsel for the accused persons that the accused persons are completely innocent and recovery of case property has been falsely implanted upon them. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel that non-joinder of public witness despite availability cast shadow of doubt on prosecution story. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that tampering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out as seal was not handed to the independent witness. At the end, it is submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused persons are liable to be acquitted of the alleged offence.
22. I have heard the rival submissions and have also carefully gone through the entire material available on record and evidence led on behalf of the prosecution. My findings on the point for determination and brief reasons for the same are now being discussed in following paragraphs.
23. In present case, the prosecution was duty bound to prove the FIR No. 76/2014 State Vs Manoj etc. PS: Gulabi Bagh Page No.16Digitally /25 signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2026.02.03 16:58:47 +0530 possession of the illicit liquor with accused Manoj in the vehicle being driven by him and that accused Hemant Kumar was the owner of the said vehicle from which the illicit liquor was allegedly recovered. Same is sought to be proved by the recovery memo and testimony of the witnesses. But the manner of conducting inquiry, seizure and search etc. on the spot at the time of arrest of the accused Manoj and alleged recovery of illicit liquor in this case, makes the prosecution version highly doubtful. Incident is stated to have happened at about 09:00 PM on 04.05.2014 and it is evident from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that the accused Manoj was apprehended alongwith the alleged unauthorised illicit liquor at a public place but still no public independent person was cited as a witness in this case.
24. The aforesaid observations have been deduced from the testimony of PW-1, PW-10 as well as PW-13. As per version of PW-1 and PW-13, after apprehension of the accused, public persons were available at the spot. They have further stated that the IO requested 4-5 public persons to join the investigation but none of them joined the investigation and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. They also stated that no notice was served upon the passersby by PW-10, who refused to join the investigation due to paucity of time. However, the IO who has been examined as PW-10/SI Sanjay Kumar has deposed that no public witnesses were going through the spot of incident. The statement of the IO that no public witnesses were present at the spot is contradictory to the statement of PW-1 and PW-13 who were also present at the spot. Furthermore, the Court also finds it highly FIR No. 76/2014 State Vs Manoj etc. PS: Gulabi Bagh Page No.17 /25 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI Date:
MALIK MALIK 16:58:52 2026.02.03 +0530 improbable that no public person was found at Road No. 40, Near Metro Pillar No. 94, Ram Bagh Road, Bagichi Peerji, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi at 9:00 pm in the night. The said contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses raises doubt on the version of the prosecution.
25. Furthermore, the aforementioned explanation given by PW-1 and PW-13 cannot be accepted by the court since, the IO was under obligation to issue notice in writing to the public persons, who refused to join the police investigation particularly in the background when the accused has already been apprehended by the police and there was no apprehension that accused might escape. Moreover, the IO has not even placed on record the names of the passerby who were asked to join the investigation and neither have any reasons been mentioned by the IO for refusal by the people who were approached to join the investigation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds that police has not made any sincere effort to join independent public witnesses during investigation. In this regard reliance is being placed on the following judgments:-
In a case law reported as "Anoop V/s State", 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shop-keepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding FIR No. 76/2014 State Vs Manoj etc. PS: Gulabi Bagh Page No.18 /25 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI Date:
MALIK MALIK 2026.02.03 16:58:56 +0530 party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
In an case law reported as "Roop Chand V/s The State of Haryana", 1999 (1) C.L.R 69, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:-
"3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with their help. The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the possession of the petitioner during noon time and it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses from the public were available and they were asked to join the investigation but they refused to do so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity between them and the petitioner".
"4. It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigation Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons FIR No. 76/2014 State Vs Manoj etc. PS: Gulabi Bagh Page No.19 /25 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2026.02.03 16:59:00 +0530 contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that he witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an afterthought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful".
In case law reported as "Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab", 1997 (3) Crimes 55 the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court observed as under:-
"5. In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused"
"6. In the present case, the State examined two witnesses namely, Harbans Singh ASI who appeared as PW1 and Kartar Singh. PW2. Both the witnesses supported the prosecution version in terms of the recovery of opium from the person of the petitioner, but there was no public witness who had joined. It is not necessary in such recoveries that public witnesses must be joined, but attempt must be FIR No. 76/2014 State Vs Manoj etc. PS: Gulabi Bagh Page No.20 /25 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2026.02.03 16:59:05 +0530 made to join the public witnesses. There can be cases when public witnesses are reluctant to join or are not available. All the same, the prosecution must show a genuine attempt having been made to join a public witness or that they were not available. A stereo-type statement of non-availability will not be sufficient particularly when at the relevant time, it was not difficult to procure the service of public witness. This reflects adversely on the prosecution version".
26. Considering the aforesaid observations made by the Higher Courts, the omissions/ failure on the part of investigating agency to join independent public witnesses create reasonable doubt in the prosecution story. Making bald averments that 4-5 passersby were asked to join the investigation but none agreed without giving any written notice to them does not inspire the confidence of the Court.
27. The next inconsistency in the case of the prosecution is the failure to prove the arrival and departure entries of the police officials. It is pertinent to mention that the present case rests entirely on the alleged recovery of case property, i.e. illicit liquor from the possession of the accused Manoj at the relevant time by the police officials. Police officials are under a statutory duty to mark their departure and arrival in the register kept in the police station for above purpose as per the Punjab Police Rules. It is relevant here to reproduce Chapter 22 Rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which reads as under:
"22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No. II.FIR No. 76/2014 State Vs Manoj etc. PS: Gulabi Bagh Page No.21 /25
Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2026.02.03 16:59:10 +0530 The following matters shall, amongst others, be entered:
(c) 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.
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."
28. Since public persons were not joined in the investigation, the departure entry of the aforesaid police officials who formed part of the raiding party and had apprehended the accused with the case property becomes a vital piece of evidence. In the case in hand neither the departure entry nor arrival entry was proved by prosecution, however, proof of the said entry is indispensable as the present case rests solely on the alleged recovery made by the aforesaid police officials. Therefore, the failure to prove the aforementioned entries casts a doubt on the story of the prosecution.
29. Further, as per evidence on record, the seal after use was not given to any independent public person but was infact was handed over to PW-13/HC Rajkumar, who was also a material prosecution witness being a witness to the alleged recovery of the illicit liquor from the possession of the accused, such material witness of a case is always interested in the success of the case of the prosecution and keeping in view this factum, chances of fabrication of case property cannot be ruled out. Hence, considering the legal position, the benefit of doubt should be FIR No. 76/2014 State Vs Manoj etc. PS: Gulabi Bagh Page No.22 /25 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2026.02.03 16:59:15 +0530 given to the accused, as tampering with case property in such a scenario cannot be ruled out. The reliance is placed on the judgment of Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2007 (3) R.C.C. (Criminal) 452 , wherein it is held that-
"7. The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property. It is well settled that till the case property is not dispatched to the forensic science laboratory, the seal should not be available to the prosecuting agency and in the absence of such a safeguard the possibility of seal, contraband and the samples being tampered with cannot be ruled out."
Similarly, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Safiullah v. State, 1993 (1) RCR (Criminal) 622, held that -
"10. The seals after use were kept by the police officials themselves. Therefore, the possibility of tampering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out. It was very essential for the prosecution to have established from stage to stage the fact that the sample was not tampered with. Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused."
30. From the aforesaid discussion, it is very clear that the man- ner in which the inquiry, seizure and search etc. has been conducted on the spot at the time of alleged recovery of illicit liquor from car bearing no. DL-4CM-9325, which was being driven by accused Manoj, makes the prosecution version highly doubtful. Once the recovery of the illicit liquor from the car driven by accused Manoj is in doubt, no liability can FIR No. 76/2014 State Vs Manoj etc. PS: Gulabi Bagh Page No.23 /25 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2026.02.03 16:59:19 +0530 also be attributed to the owner of the car i.e. accused Hemant in the in- stant case for the offence u/s 33 r/w 52 (2) Delhi Excise Act. Section 52(2) of the Delhi Excise Act is only attracted when it is established that the owner of a vehicle permitted the same to be used for transportation of illicit liquor. However, when the recovery of illicit liquor from ac- cused Manoj while driving a car belonging to the accused Hemant has not been established beyond reasonable doubt, the offence against ac- cused Hemant which flows from the offence alleged to be committed by accused Manoj also cannot sustain. In such circumstances, there is no re- quirement to adjudicate upon the issue whether accused Hemant was the registered owner of the vehicle in question.
31. At this stage, it would also be worthwhile to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh vs State of Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 637) regarding the nature of burden of proof on the prose- cution to prove its case. The ratio of this judgment is applied with the same vigour even after passing of more than 50 years. It was held in this case that:- "There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is in- evitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evi- dence before an accused can be convicted." Again in Jagdish Prasad vs State (Govt of NCT Of Delhi) 2011 (9) LRC 206 (Del), the Hon'ble High of Delhi had observed that "It is well settled that in a criminal case, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution is required FIR No. 76/2014 State Vs Manoj etc. PS: Gulabi Bagh Page No.24 /25 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2026.02.03 16:59:23 +0530 to establish the guilt beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. If, on con- sideration of the prosecution evidence, a reasonable doubt remains in re- spect of culpability of the accused, he is entitled to benefit of doubt.
32. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of considered view that in the present case the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused Manoj and Hemant Kumar beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused Manoj is acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act and accused Hemant Kumar is acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 33 r/w 52(2) of the Delhi Excise Act
33. Bail bonds u/s 437A of Cr.P.C. are to be furnished which would remain valid for a period of six months.
Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI Date:
MALIK MALIK 16:59:29 2026.02.03 +0530 Announced in the open (MANSI MALIK) Court on 03rd February, 2026 Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-02 Central/Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/03.02.2026 FIR No. 76/2014 State Vs Manoj etc. PS: Gulabi Bagh Page No.25 /25