Delhi District Court
State vs . Akhilesh Aggarwal on 15 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR, ACMM / NORTH EAST :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Akhilesh Aggarwal
FIR No : 294/12
U/S : 33 of Delhi Excise Act
PS : New Usman Pur
1. Serial No. of the case : 1354/12
2. Date of commission of offence : 05.11.2012
3. Date of institution of the case : 01.12.2012
4. Name of the complainant (if any) : HC Satender no. 1552/ NE
PS New Usman Pur
5. Name of accused person, : Akhilesh Aggarwal
his parentage and address S/o Sh. Devender Aggarwal
R/o N56, Gali no. 15II,
Near Sahib Singh School,
Braham Puri, Delhi.
6. Offence complained of or proved : U/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
and his examination ( if any)
8. Date of arguments : 15.07.2013
9. Date of judgment/final arguments : 15.07.2013
10. Final order : Acquitted
11. Brief statement of the reason for decision : FIR No. 294/12 State Vs. Akhilesh Aggarwal 1/5 Judgment :
Vide this judgment, I shall decide this case under Section 33 of Delhi Excise Act. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under :
1. Prosecution has alleged that on 05.11.2012 at about 10:15 pm in st front of JP Telecom, Service Road, 1 pusta, New Usmanpur, accused was found in possession of one sack containing 24 bottles of brand Chakde Masaledar Desi Sharab in contravention of Delhi Excise Act. The accused was arrested under Section 33 of Delhi Excise Act and chargesheeted after investigation.
2. Accused appeared before this Court and after compliance under Section 207 IPC, charge under section 33 of Delhi Excise Act was framed against him vide order dated 17/12/2012 and accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove the case, prosecution has examined PW1 Ct. Pankaj, PW2 HC Satender, PW3 HC Nathu Ram, PW4 HC Raj Kumar, PW5 HC Tarsem Lal, PW6 Narender, PW7 HC Mustaq Ali and closed PE. After closure of PE, Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded.
Accused has not led any defence evidence.
FIR No. 294/12 State Vs. Akhilesh Aggarwal 2/5
4. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. As per the prosecution story, accused was apprehended by the police officials during patrolling at a public place and liquor was recovered out of his possession. All the PWs are police officials. Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that accused has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, where all the PWs are police officials, a false implication of the accused may not be ruled out. Though it is not a legal requirement that the testimony of police officials is not reliable, yet the testimony is to be considered with cautions, in view of the facts. In the present case, accused was apprehended at public place and public witnesses were available, but public persons were not made witness to the recovery or arrest of accused and even no notice was served upon the public persons who allegedly refused to participate in the proceedings. In fact, accused has been arrested in contravention of section 41B of Cr. PC and no public or family member has been made witness to arrest or recovery which is mandatory and noncompliance is fatal. Though PW4 has deposed that the information was given to one Parvesh via telephone, yet he did not remember the telephone number which suggest that no intimation was given. Even nearby locality is populated but no efforts were made to call public person or family members of the accused. Besides it, PW3 HC Nathu Ram has deposed that the accused did not try to run away on seeing the police party and FIR No. 294/12 State Vs. Akhilesh Aggarwal 3/5 even distance from which accused was seen by the PWs is disputed. Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that it was a dark place and it was not possible to see the accused from the distance of 50 paces, which is also disputed by PW2 as 1520 paces. Though PWs have replied to it that they saw the accused in the light of street light, yet the same has not been shown in the site plan Ex. PW7/A. It create a doubt that a person who was carrying liquor did not try to run on seeing police party and was apprehended silently.
5. Besides it, one more material fact i.e. identity of accused is also relevant to be considered. PW1, PW2 and PW7 have identified and named the accused as Akhilesh Aggarwal, but PW3 has deposed named him as Deeraj Sharma which also create a doubt regarding the identity of the accused and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further, the police officials who were the main witnesses in this case did not remember the DD entry by which they left the police station for patrolling. In fact, in this case, in the absence of any particulars of patrolling time of police officials and absence of public persons as recovery / arrest of accused, a false implication of the accused may not be ruled out. In fact, prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. I hereby give benefit of doubt to the accused. Accused is hereby FIR No. 294/12 State Vs. Akhilesh Aggarwal 4/5 acquitted of all the charges. Surety discharged. Any documents placed on record, either by surety or accused, be returned against acknowledgment. Case property is forfeited to the State and be destroyed as per rules after appeal. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court (DEVENDER KUMAR)
th
on 15 July, 2013 ACMM( North East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 294/12 State Vs. Akhilesh Aggarwal 5/5