Delhi District Court
State vs Soniya on 6 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF HARSHAL NEGI
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02, DWARKA COURT,
NEW DELHI.
FIR No. 501/2019
PS: Dabri
U/s: 33 Delhi Excise Act
Case no. 6156/2020
State Vs. Soniya
W/o Sh. Sachin,
R/o G-1, Sitapuri, Part - II, New Delhi ........Accused
S. No. of the case : 6156/2020
The date of offence : 06.08.2019
The name of the complainant : Ct. Dharmender
The name of the accused : Soniya
The offence complained : Section 33 Delhi Excise Act
The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Argument heard on : 31.10.2025
The date of order : 31.10.2025
The final order : Acquittal
Ld. APP for the State : Sh. Vinay Tehlan
Brief Facts
1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 06.08.2019, Ct. Dharmender was posted at PS Dabri as Constable. On that day, Ct. Dharmender was on patrolling duty in beat no. 3, when Ct. Dharmender reached near G-1/61, Sita Puri, Part-II New Delhi. Ct. Dharmender saw FIR No. 501/2019 State Vs. Soniya 1 of 16 accused who was sitting outside the G-1/ 61 and one plastic katta was lying nearby. On seeing me she started moving towards G-1/ 61, thereafter Ct. Dharmender ran towards her and stopped her, asked her what is inside the plastic katta. Upon asking, she did not give any satisfactory answer and thereafter, Ct. Dharmender checked a plastic katta found containing illicit liquor. Ct. Dharmender informed about this to the DO. Thereafter, HC Dharamvir along with W/Ct. Lalita came to the spot.
2. An FIR bearing No. 501/2019 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act was registered at PS Dabri against the accused. Investigation of the case was handed over to Investigating Officer HC Dharamvir, who filed the chargesheet.
3. On completion of investigation, a chargesheet u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act was filed against the accused. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused was summoned to face trial.
4. On her appearance, a copy of chargesheet along with documents were supplied to the accused in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') . On finding prima facie case against the accused, a charge under section 33 Delhi Excise Act was framed against her, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined the following witnesses.
FIR No. 501/2019 State Vs. Soniya 2 of 16
6. HC Dharmender was examined as PW1. He stated thus: "On 06.08.2019, I was posted at PS Dabri as Constable. On that day, I was on patrolling duty in beat no. 3, when I reached near G-1/61, Sita Puri, Part-II New Delhi I saw accused who was sitting outside the G- 1/ 61 and one plastic katta was lying nearby. On seeing me she started moving towards G-1/ 61, thereafter I ran towards her and stopped her, asked her what is inside the plastic katta. Upon asking, she did not give any satisfactory answer and thereafter, I checked a plastic katta found containing illicit liquor. I informed about this to the DO. Thereafter, HC Dharamvir along with W/Ct. Lalita came to the spot. IO asked 4-5 public person to join the investigation but they refused to join the same by stating their personal reasons and without stating their names. I handed over abovesaid plastic katta full of illicit liquor to the IO/HC Dharamvir and accused to W/Ct. Lalita. IO inspected the said plastic katta which was found containing total 41 quarter bottles out of which 23 quarter bottles of Crazy Romeo and 18 quarter bottles of Royal General Reserve Whisky from which one quarter bottle from each brand was taken as sample, the same was sealed with the seal of DV and rest of the quarter bottles were placed in the plastic katta and sealed with the seal of DV. IO prepared seizure memo vide Ex. PW1/A bearing my signature at point A. IO filled M29 form. After that IO recorded my statement which is Ex. PW1/B (bearing my signature at point A) and prepared the rukka in my presence Ex. PW1/C. After that IO handed over seal to me and gave me rukka for registration of FIR. Thereafter, I went to PS and got the FIR registered, after sometime, I came back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. IO prepared the site plan at my instance Ex. PW1/D. IO FIR No. 501/2019 State Vs. Soniya 3 of 16 recorded my statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. I can identify the accused. Accused is present in the court and correct identified by the witness. I can identify the case property, if shown to me. At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property i.e. one unsealed sample of crazy romeo and Royal General 180 ml. The same is correctly identified by the witness. The same is Ex.A1 ( colly). MHC(M) has also produced a copy of destruction order dated 01.08.2020 in which present FIR is mentioned at serial no. 20 . The same is taken on record and marked as Ex. A2 (OSR) ( Colly)."
7. In his cross-examination, PW1 stated thus: "I alongwith other police staff left the spot at about 11.30 p.m. Case property was taken to P S on my bike. I left for registeration of FIR at about 9.50 p.m and came back at about 10.30 p.m after registeration of FIR. IO reached at the spot at about 8.50 p.m. No notice was served to any public person for joining the investigation. No seal handing over memo was prepared. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely or nothing increminating was recovered from the possession of the accused or that all the investigation was done while sitting at PS. "
8. ASI Dharamveer was examined as PW2. He stated thus: "On 06.08.2019, I was posted at PS Dabri. On that day, on receiving DD No. 72B regarding the apprehension of accused along with illicit liquor I alongwith WCt. Lalita reached at the spot i.e G-1/61, Sitapuri, Delhi where Ct. Dharmender met me and handed over the accused along with recovered liquor from him to me. I requested some passers by to join the proceedings but none agreed and left the FIR No. 501/2019 State Vs. Soniya 4 of 16 place without disclosing their names and address. Thereafter, the said katta was checked it was found containing 41 qtr. Bottles out of which 23 quarter bottles of Crazy Romeo and 18 quarter bottles of Royal General. Thereafter, I took out one quarter bottles of each brand as sample and the rest of the case property sealed with the seal of DB. The sample bottles were also sealed with the seal of DB. Form M-29 was filled up by me marked as Mark D bearing my signature at Point X. Seizure memo of case property was prepared vide memo already Ex. PW1/A bears my signature at point X. Thereafter, I recorded statement of Ct. Dharmender which is already Ex.PW1/B bears my attesting signature at point X and prepared a rukka already Ex.PW1/C bearing my signature at point X and handed over the same to Ct. Dharmender for the registration of the case. He went to PS and after getting the case registered returned to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to me. I prepared the site plan already Ex.PW1/D bearing my signature at point X. Accused was allowed to leave. Thereafter, we left the spot case property and samples were deposited in the malkhana. I recorded the statement of witnesses. I arrested the accused during the investigation with the help of WCt. Khilwanti from her house vide memo Ex.PW2/A bearing my signature at point X, personal search Ex.PW2/B bearing my signature at point X with the help of Wct. Khilwanti. During the investigation, I got the samples of the case property deposited at Excise Lab Vikas Bhawan, ITO, through MHC(M) (CP) vide RC No. 222/21/19, same is now already marked as Mark X. Accused is present in the court today correctly identified by the witness. I can identify the case property if shown to me. At this stage, Ld. Counsel FIR No. 501/2019 State Vs. Soniya 5 of 16 for accused submits that the identity of case property is not disputed as same is already Ex.A1 and A2 by PW1."
9. In his cross-examination, PW2 stated thus: " I came at the spot at about 08.45 PM and left the spot at about 10.45 PM. Ct. Dharmender went to PS for registration of FIR at about 09.50 PM and came back at the spot at about 10.30 PM. There were houses and shops near the spot. No notice was served to any public person. No seal handing over memo was prepared in my presence. Case property was taken to PS on e-Rickshaw. It is incorrect to suggest that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the accused or at the instance of accused or that all the proceedings had been conducted while sitting at PS or that I am deposing falsely."
10. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 294 Cr.P.C and she admitted the following documents:
a. FIR No. 501/2019 PS Dabri alongwith certificate U/s 65B IEA as Ex.P1(Colly).
b. Entry in register no. 19 at RC No. 222/21/19 as Mark X. c. Report of Excise Lab as Ex.P2.
d. Statement of Ct. Jai Kishan as Mark Y.
11. Thus, witness at serial No. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 were dropped from the list of witness. It has been submitted by the Ld. APP that all the material witnessess are examined, thereby, PE stands closed.
FIR No. 501/2019 State Vs. Soniya 6 of 16
12. The prosecution evidence was closed and thereafter the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 30.10.2025 wherein all the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was put to her, which she had denied to be correct and submitted that she was not found in possession of illicit liquor. That she has been falsely implicated in this present case. That she is innocent and all the witnesses deposing against her are interested witnesses. The accused chose not to lead any evidence in his defence.
13. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that it is clear from the statement of the complainant and other witnesses as well as the documents appearing on record that the accused was in possession of illicit liquor. He has thus, submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and she be, therefore, held guilty and convicted for the above-said offence.
14. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and since nothing incriminating has appeared against the accused, she be, therefore, acquitted for the offence charged.
15. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel at length, perused the record, gone through the relevant provisions of law and given my thoughts to the matter.
Findings of the Court
16. Before embarking on the analysis and appreciation of the statements FIR No. 501/2019 State Vs. Soniya 7 of 16 and evidences on record it is apposite to state that to bring home the guilt of the accused in any criminal matter beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt the burden rests always upon the prosecution. The burden of proof on the prosecution is heavy, constant and does not shift. The case of the prosecution needs to stand on its own footing failing which benefit of doubt ought to be given in favour of the accused. Needless to say, in this case also, with or without defense evidence, the prosecution has to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. On the touchstone of the above settled legal proposition the facts of the present case are to be analysed.
I. Non-joining of Public Witnesses
17. One of the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the accused is that since no independent witness has been joined at the time of investigation, it is, therefore, difficult to believe the prosecution version as it creates a doubt on the veracity of the statement of police witnesses.
18. This court has given its thoughts to the above contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused. Perusal of the testimony of PW-1 and PW2 reveals that they have categorically stated that there were residential houses and public persons were passing by. They had also asked public persons to join the investigation, but none of them had agreed. Thus, it is not the case of the prosecution that no public person was present at or near the spot of recovery. However, it is equally true that no steps are shown to have been taken to note down the names and addresses of those persons. It is a well settled proposition of law that non-joining of public witness throws doubt over the fairness of the investigation by FIR No. 501/2019 State Vs. Soniya 8 of 16 police. Section 100 (4) of the CrPC also casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society. However, no public person has been joined by the IO in the present case.
19. In a case titled as Nanak Chand Vs. State of Delhi, 1990 SCC OnLine Del 469 , Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"The recovery was from a street with houses on both sides and shops nearby. And, yet no witness from the public has been produced. Not that in every case the police officials are to be treated as unworthy of reliance but their failure to join witnesses from the public especially when they are available at their elbow, may, as in the present case, cast doubt. They have again churned out a stereotyped version. Its rejection needs no Napoleon on the Bridge at Arcola (Emphasis supplied)."
20. In the present case also, non-joining of any public person as a witness creates doubt on the case of the prosecution. Although, this Court is conscious of the fact that it is a well settled law that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non- joining of public witnesses as they keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable, however, in the present case, it is not only the absence of public witnesses which raises a doubt on the prosecution version but there are other circumstances too, as discussed FIR No. 501/2019 State Vs. Soniya 9 of 16 in the later part of the judgment, which raise suspicion over the prosecution case.
II. No seal Handing over memo.
21. PW 1 in his cross examination stated that no seal handing over memo was prepared by him. PW 2 also stated that no seal handing over memo was prepared. Thus, in the instant case no handing over memo of the seal was prepared which can suggest that case property remained intact and there is no tampering with the same.
22. As per evidence available on record, the seal after use was not given to any independent public person. Further, there is nothing on record to prove whether the said seal was ever deposited in the Malkhana of Police Station or not. In such case, tampering with case property can also not be ruled out. As a result, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. Reliance is placed upon the decision in Safiullah v. State, (1993) 49 DLT 193, where the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed:
"9. ... The seal after use were kept by the police officials themselves therefore the possibility of tempering 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 tempered with. ...... Once a doubt is created in the FIR No. 501/2019 State Vs. Soniya 10 of 16 preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused."
III. Discrepancy in the case qua Seizure Memo and Form M29.
23. There exists yet another discrepancy in the case of the prosecution. PW 2/IO in his examination categorically stated that he prepared the site plan, seizure memo, rukka and Form M 29 and then handed over the rukka to PW 1 for the purpose of registration of FIR. PW1, thereafter, went to the PS and got the FIR registered. PW 1 also submitted the same. Thus, it is clear from the testimony of PW 2/IO and PW 1 that the seizure memo and Form M 29 were prepared before the tehrir/original rukka was handed over by PW2 IO to PW1 for registration of the FIR. The FIR was thus, admittedly registered after the preparation of the seizure memo and Form M 29, however, surprisingly it bears the FIR number and it is thus worth wondering that if the FIR was never registered at the time when the seizure memo and Form M 29 were prepared, how the FIR number came to be noted in the seizure memo and Form M 29 since the number of the FIR could have come to knowledge of PW 2/IO only after a copy of the FIR was brought to the spot by PW 1. Thus, the number of FIR in no circumstances could have been mentioned by the IO on the seizure memo and Form M 29, which came into existence before registration of the FIR.
24. In this context, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi Administration, 1987 SCC OnLine Del 290, has observed as under in paragraph 6:
FIR No. 501/2019 State Vs. Soniya 11 of 16 "Learned counsel for the State concedes that immediately after the arrest of the accused, his personal search was effected and the memo Ex.
PW11/D was prepared. Thereafter, the sketch plan of the knife was prepared in the presence of the witnesses. After that, the ruqa EX. PW11/F was sent to the Police Station for the registration of the case on the basis of which the FIR, PW11/G was recorded. The F.I.R. is numbered as 36, a copy of which was sent to the I.O. after its registration. It comes to that the number of F.I.R. came to the knowledge of the I.O. after a copy of it was delivered to him at the spot by a constable. In the normal circumstances, the F.I.R. No. should not find mention in the recovery memo or the sketch plan which had come into existence before the registration of the case. However, from the perusal of the recovery memo, I find that the FIR is mentioned whereas the sketch plan does not show the number of the FIR. It is not explained as to how and under what circumstances the recovery memo came to bear the F.I.R. No. which had already come into existence before the registration of the case. These are few of the circumstances which create a doubt, in my mind, about the genuineness of the weapon of offence FIR No. 501/2019 State Vs. Soniya 12 of 16 alleged to have been recovered from the accused."
25. In another case titled Mohd. Hashim v. State, 1999 SCC OnLine Del 859, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with an appeal under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has also observed about the discrepancy, i.e., appearance of FIR number on seizure memo and other documents before registration of FIR and it runs as under:
"Surprisingly, the secret information (Ex. PW7/A) received by the Sub-Inspector Narender Kumar Tyagi (PW-7), the notice under Section 50 of the Act (Ex. PW5/A) alleged to have been served on the appellant, the seizure memo (Ex. PW1/A) and the report submitted under Section 57 of the Act (Ex. PW7/D) bear the number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B). The number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) given on the top of the aforesaid documents is in the same ink and in the same handwriting, which clearly indicates that these documents were prepared at the same time. The prosecution has not offered any explanation as to under what circumstance number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) had appeared on the top of the aforesaid documents, which were allegedly prepared on the spot. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) was recorded prior to the alleged FIR No. 501/2019 State Vs. Soniya 13 of 16 recovery of the contraband or number of the said FIR was inserted in these documents after its registration. In both the situations, 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."
26. In the light of the abovesaid judgments, the mentioning of the number of FIR in the seizure memo creates serious doubt on the prosecution version and alleged recovery of illicit liquor and it leads to only one conclusion that either the said document was prepared later on or that the FIR was registered earlier in point of time. In both the aforesaid eventualities, a reasonable doubt has been raised on the version of the prosecution the benefit of which has to be given to the accused.
IV. No departure or the arrival entry of PW 1.
27. The present case rests entirely on the alleged recovery of case property, i.e. illicit liquor, from the possession of the accused at the relevant time by a police official PW 1, who was on patrolling duty at the relevant time and place, as per the prosecution story.
28. Police officials are under a statutory duty to mark their departure and arrival in the register kept in the police station for the purpose as per the Punjab Police Rules. 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, FIR No. 501/2019 State Vs. Soniya 14 of 16 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 personality by signature or seal. In the present case, no departure or the arrival entry has been proved on the record by the prosecution. In absence of the departure and arrival entry of the police officials their presence at the spot cannot be believed. Reference can be placed upon Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29 Delhi High Court wherein it has been observed:
"if the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act, the courts will have to approach their action with reservations. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if the provisions of law are not strictly complied with and the least that can be said is that it is so done with an oblique motive. This failure to bring on record, the DD entries creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on the part of the prosecution."
29. In the present matter, there exists no entry which could even remotely suggest that PW 1 was assigned patrolling duty on the given date and time and he went for the purpose of patrolling at the given date and time.
FIR No. 501/2019 State Vs. Soniya 15 of 16
30. Thus, in light of the above discussions which throws doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution version, this court is of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that illicit liquor was recovered from the possession of the accused. The accused Soniya, is, therefore, acquitted of the offence u/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act.
Announced in the open court on 06.11.2025.
Digitally signed by HARSHAL HARSHAL NEGI
NEGI Date: (Harshal Negi)
2025.11.06
14:31:39 +0530 JMFC-02/Dwarka Court,
New Delhi, 06.11.2025.
It is certified that the present judgment runs into 16 pages and each page bears my signature.
Digitally
signed by
HARSHAL
HARSHAL NEGI (Harshal Negi)
NEGI Date: JMFC-02/DwarkaCourt,
2025.11.06
14:31:48 New Delhi, 06.11.2025.
+0530
FIR No. 501/2019 State Vs. Soniya 16 of 16