Delhi District Court
State vs Amit And Ors on 12 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. APOORV GUPTA, SPECIAL RAILWAY MAGISTRATE
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
STATE VS. AMIT & ORS
FIR NO. 951 / 2015
U/S 33/52 DELHI EXCISE ACT
POLICE STATION TIMAR PUR
Date of institution of the case : 02.11.2017
Date of judgment reserved : 09.09.2024
CNR : DLCT020250142017
Cr. Case No. : 2263 / 2018
Date of commission of offence : 09/10.12.2015
Name of the complainant : HC Gangavir Singh, PIS 28871029
Name of accused and address : (1) AMIT
S/o Sh. Bijendra
R/o Gali No.4, Shastri Colony,
Near Deshwal STD, Sonipat, Haryana.
(2) DHARMENDRA
S/o Sh. Sangram Singh
R/o Gali No.4, Shastri Colony,
Near Deshwal STD, Sonipat, Haryana.
(3) NAVEEN
S/o Sh. Raj Mal
R/o House No. 1249/31, Pragati Nagar,
Chhotu Ram Chowk, Sonepat, Haryana.
Offence complained of : Section 33/52 Delhi Excise Act
STATE VS. AMIT & ORS FIR NO. 951/2015 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 1 / 17
APOORV Digitally signed by
APOORV GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2024.11.12
16:21:14 +0530
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of Judgment : 12.11.2024
Final order : CONVICTED
JUDGMENT
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION :
1. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 09/10.12.2015 at about 3:25 AM near Soorghat Picket, Timarpur, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Timarpur, accused Amit and Dharmender were found in possession of 84 boxes of illicit liquor which were being transported in Tavera car bearing registration no. HR68A7068 belonging to accused Naveen without any license or permit.
COURT PROCEEDINGS :
2. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against accused persons for commission of offence under Section 33/52 Delhi Excise Act, 482 IPC & 39/192 MV Act read with 50/177 Central Motor Vehicle Rules. Cognizance was taken and provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with after appearance of the accused persons.
CHARGE :
3. After hearing arguments on point of charge, charge for the offence under Section 33 Delhi Excise Act r/w Section 34 IPC was framed against accused Amit and Dharmender and separate charge for the offence under Section 33/52 Delhi Excise Act was framed against accused Naveen to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
STATE VS. AMIT & ORS FIR NO. 951/2015 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 2 / 17 Digitally signed by APOORV APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.11.12 16:21:20 +0530 EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION :
4. To prove its case, the prosecution in all examined fifteen witnesses. PW-1 ASI Munesh Kumar is the Duty Officer. PW-2 SI Gangabir is the complainant. PW-3 HC Arvind has deposited the samples in Excise Lab. PW-4 HC Ashwani is the MHC (M).
PW-5 HC Trilok is the MHCR. PW-6 Ombir, PW-7 Mahender Singh and PW-8 Ashok are the previous owners of the Tavera car. PW-9 HC Vikesh and PW-13 HC Arun Kaushik joined the investigation with IO. PW-10 HC Devender and PW-12 Ct. Ranjan Bansal were along with PW-2 Gangabir. PW-11 SI Ajay Kumar filed the charge-sheet. joined the investigation with IO. PW-14 Inspector Ganpati Maharaj is the initial Investigating Officer. PW-15 Brijendra Singh is the chemical examiner.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED :
5. In their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused persons did not deny that the case property Ex.P1 and Ex.P3, 04 photographs of the offending vehicle are Ex.P2. They pleaded innocence.
5.1 Accused Dharmender stated that at the spot, there was an accident. Police officials came at the spot and asked for money from him. As he was unable to pay the same, he was falsely implicated in the present matter.
5.2 Accused Naveen stated that he has no concern with the offending vehicle.
The main culprit is Ajeet and Investigating Officer has released the main culprit after taking bribe.
5.3 Accused Amit stated that he has no concern with the offending vehicle. The actual culprit has been released by Investigating Officer after taking bribe.
STATE VS. AMIT & ORS FIR NO. 951/2015 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 3 / 17
APOORV Digitally signed by
APOORV GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2024.11.12
16:21:25 +0530
5.4 They chose not to lead any evidence in defence.
SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
6. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no independent witness to recovery. There is contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses.
7. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the state submitted that it has come in the statement of witnesses that public persons were requested to join but none agreed. Even otherwise, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of police officials who stood the test of cross-examination. The contradiction pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons are minor in nature and does not affect the substratum of the case. No reason has been assigned by the accused persons as to why they will be falsely implicated in this case.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :
8. The record has been thoroughly and carefully perused. The respective submissions of Sh. Deepak, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sh. Hari Krishan, learned counsel for the accused persons have been considered.
9. First of all, I shall take up the case of prosecution qua accused Amit and Dharmender.
10. The case of the prosecution is that on the fateful day accused Dharmender and Amit were found in possession of illicit liquor, which was being carried by them in the car which was being driven by accused Amit, belonging to accused Naveen, without any permit or licence. In order to bring home the charge against both the accused, the STATE VS. AMIT & ORS FIR NO. 951/2015 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 4 / 17 Digitally signed by APOORV APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.11.12 16:21:31 +0530 prosecution was first of all required to prove beyond reasonable doubt the recovery of illicit liquor from the possession of both the accused.
RE: RECOVERY AND SEIZURE OF CASE PROPERTY
11. To prove the factum of apprehension of the accused in possession of the illicit liquor in question, the prosecution has examined five recovery witnesses namely PW-2 SI Ganga Bir, PW-10 HC Devender, PW-12 Ct. Ranjan Bansal, PW-13 HC Arun Kaushik and PW-14 Inspector Ganpati Maharaj.
12. PW-2 SI Ganga Bir has deposed that on the intervening night of 09- 10.12.2015 he along with Ct. Ranjan Bansal and Ct. Devender was on picket and vehicle duty at Surghat Picket. At about 03:25 AM, one Tavera car bearing registration no. HR68A7068 (which did not have front number plate with blue colour light on the roof of the car) was coming from the side of Wazirabad and towards Khajuri. They tried to stop the aforesaid car but the driver of the car tried to escape from the barricades. With the help of other police staff, he managed to stop the car. On suspicion, he checked the car and it was found containing illicit liquor. They apprehended the driver of the car namely Amit and the person namely Dharmender sitting on the conductor seat. Information was conveyed to the duty officer, PS Timar Pur and the said information was recorded vide DD No.7A Ex. PW-1/A. SI Ganpati along with Ct. Arun reached at the spot. They produced both the accused and illicit liquor before SI Ganpati. SI Ganpati recorded his statement Ex. PW-2/A. He joined the investigation with SI Ganpati and is a witness to arrest of both the accused persons and other proceedings conducted by him.
13. PW-10 HC Devender and PW-12 Ct. Ranjan Bansal have deposed on lines of PW-2 SI Ganga Bir.
STATE VS. AMIT & ORS FIR NO. 951/2015 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 5 / 17
APOORV Digitally signed by
APOORV GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2024.11.12
16:21:36 +0530
14. PW-13 HC Arun Kaushik joined investigation with PW-14 Inspector Ganpati Maharaj and took tehrir to police station for registration of FIR. He is a witness to arrest of both the accused persons and is also a witness to other proceedings conducted by the investigating officer.
15. PW-14 Inspector Ganpati Maharaj is the initial investigating officer. He has deposed that on the intervening night of 09-10.12.2015 after receiving DD No. 7-A at around 03:35 AM he along with Ct. Arun reached near the Soor Ghat picket where they met HC Gangabir, Ct. Ranjan and Ct. Devender. HC Gangabir produced the two persons namely Amit and Dharmender along with a car bearing registration no. HR-68A-7068 along with the illicit liquor in the said car. Statement of HC Gangabir Ex. PW-2/A was recorded. He asked 4-5 public persons to join the investigation but none agreed and left without disclosing names or addresses. Due to the paucity of time, no notice could be served upon them. They took out the illicit liquor from the car. On counting 84 pettis, each containing 48 quarter bottles was found. There were total 4032 quarter bottles. The label on the aforesaid petti was of 'ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. Village Bhutiyan, District Jhajjar, Haryana and 48x180ml grain based'. The label on each bottle was 'ADS Impact whiskey for sale in Haryana only'. One quarter bottle from each petti was taken out as sample and pullinda was prepared by tying the neck with a white cloth and sealed with the seal of 'GM'. Serial no. S1 to S84 was given to the samples and the aforesaid pettis along with the remaining quarter bottles were also tied with the white cloth and sealed with the seal of 'GM'. Pettis were marked A1 to A84. Form M-29 Ex. PW-14/A was filled at the spot and the seal was handed over to HC Gangabir. Illicit liquor was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/B. Tehrir Ex. PW-14/B was prepared and same was handed over to Ct. Arun for registration of FIR. He left the spot and went to the PS and returned with the copy of FIR and original tehrir and handed over the same to him. Site plan Ex. PW-14/C was prepared STATE VS. AMIT & ORS FIR NO. 951/2015 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 6 / 17 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.11.12 16:21:41 +0530 at the instance of complainant HC Gangabir. Details of the FIR were mentioned on the documents already prepared by him. Car along with key was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/C. Both the accused persons Dharmender and Amit were arrested vide arrest memos Ex. PW-2/D and Ex. PW-2/E. Their personal search were conducted vide personal search memos Ex. PW-2/G and Ex. PW-2/F. Accused persons and case property was taken to police station. The case property was deposited in the malkhana. Disclosure statements of accused persons Ex. PW-13/A and Ex. PW-13/B were recorded. After the medical examination of both the accused, 1 day PC remand of accused Amit was obtained.
16. All the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution in material particulars. Further, there are no material contradictions in the testimony of the said recovery witnesses and the Investigating Officer, who have rather supported each other's testimony in material particulars. Despite cross-examination nothing material could be elicited to discredit their testimony.
RE: SUFFICIENT LINK EVIDENCE
17. In order to prove that the case property was throughout in safe custody and had not been tampered with, PW-3 HC Arvind vide RC No. 12/21/17 Ex. PW-3/A took the sample bottles to the Excise Lab, Vikas Bhawan on instructions of PW-11 SI Ajay Kumar for examination. He has further deposed that the seal remained intact and were not tampered with while the same remained in his custody.
18. PW-4 HC Ashwani was posted as MHC (M) and he produced register no. 19 in which vide entry no. 3090 Ex. PW-4/A, seizure memo of illicit liquor (4032 quarters), Tavera car bearing registration no. HR-68A-7068, personal search memo of accused Amit STATE VS. AMIT & ORS FIR NO. 951/2015 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 7 / 17 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.11.12 16:21:47 +0530 along with Apple I-Phone and personal search memo of accused Dharmender along with Rs.90/- were deposited in the malkhana.
19. PW-5 HC Trilok has deposed that on 06.03.2017 he handed over the sample of illicit liquor in the present case to Ct. Arvind Kumar to deposit the same in Excise Lab, ITO, Delhi vide RC No.12/21/17 Ex. PW-5/A. The sample were sealed and intact. After depositing the same, Ct. Arvind Kumar handed over the RC along with acknowledgment.
20. Accordingly, the prosecution has produced sufficient link evidence to prove that the case property was in safe custody and had not been tampered with even during transport to the Excise Laboratory for examination.
RE: CASE PROPERTY
21. PW-15 Brijendra Singh has deposed that on 06.03.2017, 84 samples were received by the Excise Lab for testing. The said samples were marked to Ramesh Bedi by him for the purpose of testing on 17.03.2017. After testing the samples, Ramesh Bedi prepared the detailed report Ex. PW-15/A under his supervision.
22. As per the report of chemical examiner dated 17.03.2017 Ex. PW-15/A, all the eighty four samples were found positive for ethyl alcohol and were found to have composition of whisky but diluted. The said report accordingly stands proved.
23. As regards the submission of the learned defence counsel for the accused Amit and Dharmender is concerned, that the prosecution has not proved the recovery of the illicit liquor in question from the possession of the accused inasmuch as it has not cited or examined any independent public witness to the alleged recovery, although it is true STATE VS. AMIT & ORS FIR NO. 951/2015 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 8 / 17 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.11.12 16:21:53 +0530 that, no public witness to the recovery of the liquor has been either cited in the list of witnesses or examined by the prosecution. However, this fact by itself cannot be a ground for rejecting the unimpeached testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
24. The provisions of Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. are only directory and failure to comply with the said provisions is not invariably fatal to the case of the prosecution. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1872:
"7. At this juncture we may also dispose of one of the contentions that failure to comply with the provisions of Cr.P.C. in respect of search and seizure even up to that stage would also vitiate the trial. This aspect has been considered in a number of cases and it has been held that the violation of the provisions particularly that of S.100, 102, 103 or 165, Cr.P.C. strictly per se does not vitiate the prosecution case. If there is such violation, what the courts have to see is whether any prejudice was caused to the accused and in appreciating the evidence and other relevant factors, the courts should bear in mind that there was such a violation and from that point of view evaluate the evidence on record."
25. It, therefore, emerges that non-compliance of these provisions i.e. Section 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. would amount to an irregularity and the effect of the same on the main case depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course, in such a situation, the court has to consider whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused and also examine the evidence in respect of search in the light of the fact that these provisions have not been complied with and further consider whether the weight of evidence is in any STATE VS. AMIT & ORS FIR NO. 951/2015 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 9 / 17 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.11.12 16:21:59 +0530 manner affected because of the non-compliance. It is well settled that the testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be an official but as a rule of caution and depending upon the circumstances of the case, the courts look for independent corroboration.
26. In the instant case, prosecution witness PW-2 SI Gangabir, PW-10 HC Devender, PW-12 Ct. Ranjan Bansal, PW-13 HC Arun Kaushik have deposed that PW-14 Inspector Ganpati Maharaj had asked public persons to join the investigation, however, none agreed and left the spot mentioning their own reasons. Thus, the present is not a case where no effort at all was made by the police officials to join public witnesses in the investigation. It has been held in Appabhai and another Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696, that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non- joining of public witnesses as public witnesses keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. In paragraph 11 of the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as under:
"...It is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the incident that took place at the bus stand. There must have been several of such witnesses. But the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether-in STATE VS. AMIT & ORS FIR NO. 951/2015 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 10 / 17 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.11.12 16:22:05 +0530 village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability, if any, suggested by the accused. ..."
27. Further, it is trite that there is no reason to doubt the testimony of prosecution witnesses merely because they are police personnel. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 8 of the decision in Karamjit Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 2003 SC 1311:
"...The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. It will all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no principle of general application can be laid down..."
28. In the instant case, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, who are police officials, is found to be without blemish. There is absolutely no material or evidence on record to show that the prosecution witnesses had any reason to falsely implicate the accused. Therefore, there is found to be no ground to disbelieve their testimony. In view of the aforesaid, the mere fact that there is no public witness to the recovery of the illicit STATE VS. AMIT & ORS FIR NO. 951/2015 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 11 / 17 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.11.12 16:22:11 +0530 liquor from the possession of the accused is not sufficient to throw out the case of the prosecution.
29. As regards contradiction pointed out by counsel for the accused, same are trivial in nature. Minor contradictions are bound to occur in the testimony of the witness due to lapse of time. The witnesses were cross examined, however, nothing material could be elicited to discredit their testimony. The evidence of the witnesses cannot be brushed aside merely because of some minor contradictions, particularly for the reason that the evidence and testimonies of the witnesses are trustworthy. Not only that, the witnesses have consistently deposed with regard to the offence committed by the accused and their evidence remain unshaken during their cross-examination.
30. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Naresh and Ors.: (2011) 4 SCC 324, it was observed:-
"30. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its STATE VS. AMIT & ORS FIR NO. 951/2015 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 12 / 17 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.11.12 16:22:17 +0530 opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence."
31. Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility.' Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited. [Vide State Vs. Saravanan, (2008) 17 SCC 587, Arumugam Vs. State, (2008) 15 SCC 590; Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2009) 11 SCC 334 and Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657.]
32. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in the latest pronouncement reported as Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra Crl. Appeal No. 739 of 2017 decided on 14.07.2022 where it was observed as under :-
"Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole."
33. In the instant case, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, who are police officials, is found to be without blemish. The recovery was effected in December 2015 STATE VS. AMIT & ORS FIR NO. 951/2015 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 13 / 17 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.11.12 16:22:24 +0530 whereas PW-2 was examined in year 2022 and other witnesses were examined in year 2023 and 2024 i.e after about 9 years. As such, minor contradictions are bound to occur due to lapse of time. Even otherwise, these minor contradictions are trivial in nature and does not affect the main substratum of the case.
34. In the present case, I have already mentioned above that there is nothing on record to suggest untrustworthiness of the witnesses including police officials. Although both the accused in their statement claimed that they are innocent and that they have been falsely implicated in this case but the defence taken by both the accused does not inspire any confidence whatsoever. It would be anybody's guess as to why police officials would do this. If both the accused wants this Court to believe that they have been implicated falsely, the least which was expected from both the accused was to at least come out as to what could have been the motive for the police for their false implication and as to what was that reason for which police officials could have done so. But no such reason could be shown or proved by them. The accused persons cannot expect this Court to believe their version by simple bare allegation that they are falsely implicated. Moreover, it does not appeal to reason as to why accused persons will be falsely implicated without there being any previous enmity or ill-will between accused persons and police officials. Under the circumstances, there is no ring of truth in the case set up by the defence. On the other hand, there is no reason to discard the testimony of prosecution witnesses. Hence, the Court is satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the liquor was recovered from the possession of the accused Amit and Dharmender. Once this is done, the presumption under Section 52, Delhi Excise Act becomes relevant. As such I hold that the case against the accused Amit and Dharmender is made out beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, the accused Amit and Dharmender are convicted for the offence under Section 33, Delhi Excise Act read with S.34 IPC.
STATE VS. AMIT & ORS FIR NO. 951/2015 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 14 / 17
APOORV Digitally signed by
APOORV GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2024.11.12
16:22:30 +0530
35. As regards accused Naveen is concerned learned Counsel has submitted that the Tavera car bearing registration no. HR-68A-7068 does not belong to accused Naveen.
36. PW-14 Inspector Ganapati Maharaj along with Ct. Vikesh and HC Satyender took the accused to Sonipat, Haryana in search of the co-accused Naveen. Accused Amit identified the accused Naveen and he was apprehended. On inquiry, accused Naveen told them that the aforesaid vehicle was purchased by him from Ombir. They searched for Ombir at his house but he could not be found. Notice U/s 41-A Ex. PW-14/D was served upon the family member of Ombir. Accused Naveen was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-9/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW-9/B. Disclosure statement of accused Naveen Ex. PW-9/C was recorded. Accused Naveen handed over RC, form 28, 29 and 30 of aforesaid vehicle whose actual registration number was HR-10X-7306. Documents were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-9/D. Medical examination of accused Naveen was conducted. Inspector Ganpati Maharaj examined the witnesses namely Mahender, Ombir and Ashok regarding the ownership of the aforesaid vehicle. He obtained the delivery receipts Ex. PW-6/A, Ex. PW-7/A and Ex. PW-8/A.
37. PW-6 Ombir has deposed that he was the registered owner of the Tavera car bearing registration no. HR-10X-7306 and chassis no. 48234. He sold the same to Mahender Singh for a consideration of Rs. 1,10,000/- and handed over original RC and form no. 28, 29 and 30 to Mahender Singh. The documents pertaining to the sale of the above-mentioned car i.e., delivery-cum-receipt, 3 copies of form 28, 2 copies each of 29 and 30 are Ex. PW-6/A respectively. The RC of the above-mentioned vehicle is Ex.
PW-6/B.
STATE VS. AMIT & ORS FIR NO. 951/2015 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 15 / 17
APOORV Digitally signed by
APOORV GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2024.11.12
16:22:37 +0530
38. PW-7 Mahender Singh has deposed that on 21.11.2015, he purchased Tavera car bearing no. HR-10X-7306 and chassis no. 48234 from the registered owner namely Ombir Singh for a consideration of Rs. 1,10,000/-. Ombir handed over the original RC along with copies of form 28, 29 and 30. He sold the said car to Ashok Kumar for the consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/- and handed over the original RC along with copies of form 28, 29 and 30 to Ashok Kumar. He also handed over delivery-cum-receipt Ex. PW-6/A which was executed between Ombir Singh and him. He handed over delivery-cum-receipt which was executed between him and Ashok Kumar Ex. PW-7/A.
39. PW-8 Ashok has deposed that on 21.11.2015 he purchased Tavera car bearing no. HR-10X-7306 and chassis no. 48234 from the registered owner namely Mahender Singh for a consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/-. Mahender handed over the original RC along with copies of form 28, 29 and 30 to him. He sold the said car to Naveen for the consideration of Rs. 1,30,000/- and handed over the original RC along with copies of form 28, 29 and 30 to Naveen. He handed over delivery-cum-receipt which was executed between Mahender and him. He also handed over delivery-cum-receipt which was executed between him and Naveen Ex. PW-8/A. Naveen took over the physical possession of the above said car and he was responsible for all the liability regarding the above said vehicle.
40. In view of the testimonies of PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8 this Court is of the considered opinion that accused Naveen is the registered owner of the offending vehicle in which illicit liquor was being transported. It is merely alleged that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Actual culprit was Ajeet who has been let off by the investigating officer after taking bribe. However, nothing has been placed on record by the accused to show as to who was Ajeet and how he was connected with the vehicle which was carrying STATE VS. AMIT & ORS FIR NO. 951/2015 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 16 / 17 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.11.12 16:22:43 +0530 illicit liquor. Hence the bald allegations made by the accused are bereft of any merit. As such I hold that the case against the accused Naveen is made out beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused Naveen is held guilty and is convicted for the offence under Section 52 read with Section 33, Delhi Excise Act.
41. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I hold that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Amit and Dharmender are held guilty and are convicted for the offence under Section 33, Delhi Excise Act read with S.34 IPC. Accused Naveen is held guilty and is convicted for the offence under Section 52 Delhi Excise Act read with Section 33, Delhi Excise Act.
Digitally signed APOORV by APOORV
GUPTA
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN GUPTA (ApoorvDate:
Gupta)2024.11.12
16:22:49 +0530
COURT ON 12th NOVEMBER, 2024 Special Railway Magistrate,
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts
12.11.2024
This judgment consists of 17 pages and each and every page of this judgment is digitally signed by me.
Digitally signed APOORV by APOORV
GUPTA
GUPTA (ApoorvDate:
Gupta)
2024.11.12
16:22:53 +0530
Special Railway Magistrate,
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts
12.11.2024
STATE VS. AMIT & ORS FIR NO. 951/2015 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 17 / 17