Delhi District Court
State vs . Ratna on 17 September, 2012
State vs. Ratna
IN THE COURT OF SH ANUJ AGARWAL: MM01(SE)/
SAKET COURT: DELHI
State vs. Ratna
FIR NO. : 190/10
U/S : 61 of Punjab Excise Act
PS : Badarpur
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 182/4
b) Date of institution of the case : 12.10.10
c) Date of commission of offence : 21.07.10
d) Name of the complainant : Ct. Vivekanand
e) Name & address of the : Ratna W/o Ramu R/o Jhuggi No.
accused 58, Subhash Camp, near NTPC
Gate No. 1, Badarpur, New Delhi.
f) Offence charged with : 61 of Punjab Excise Act
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Arguments heard on : 17.09.12
i) Final order : Acquitted
j) Date of Judgment : 17.09.12
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly stated, accused Ratna has been sent to face trial with the allegations that on 21.07.10 at about 7.30 PM near NTPC Gate FIR No. 190/10 PS Badarpur 1 of 7 State vs. Ratna No. 1, near Subhash Camp, Jhuggi, main Mathura road, within the jurisdiction of PS Badarpur, accused was found in possession of plastic Katta containing 283 quarter bottles of illicit liquor without any licence or permit. Investigation was carried out.
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C.
was filed on behalf of the IO and the accused person was consequently summoned. A formal charge U/s 61 Punjab Excise Act was framed against the accused to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, three witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution.
4. PW1 is W.Ct. Suman who has deposed that on 21.07.10 she joined the investigation of present case. She has further deposed that accused was arrested as accused was found in possession of illicit liquor. She has further deposed that she conducted personal search of accused vide memo Ex.PW1/A.
5. PW2 is Ct. Vivekanand who has deposed that on 21.07.10 he was on patrolling duty and he received secret information that one lady is having illicit liquor near NTPC Gate No. 1. He has further deposed that in the meanwhile Ct. Sawan joined him at about 7.30 PM. He has FIR No. 190/10 PS Badarpur 2 of 7 State vs. Ratna further deposed that accused was seen with 3 plastic Katta who on suspicion was apprehended. He has further deposed that Katta was found containing illicit liquor. He has further deposed that HC Ram Raj reached at the spot to whom accused with case property was handed over. He has further deposed that IO recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A. He has further deposed that one Katta was having 50 quarter bottles of Bonnie Special and Katta No. 2 and 3 were having 116 and 117 bottles of Rasila Santra. He has further deposed that samples and case property were sealed with the seal of RR. He has further deposed that IO prepared Tehrir Ex.PW2/C and case was got registered through him. He duly proved seizure memo Ex.PW2/B, arrest memo as Ex.PW2/D and personal search memo Ex.PW1/A. Witness identified the case property as Ex.P1 which was produced in unsealed condition and some of the bottles were found broken. During his crossexamination, witness deposed that request was made to public person but none came forward and no written notice was served upon them.
6. PW3 HC Jagdish is the duty officer who recorded the formal FIR. He proved copy of FIR as Ex.PW 3/A and his endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW3/B. FIR No. 190/10 PS Badarpur 3 of 7 State vs. Ratna
7. PE was closed by order of this court on 28.05.12.
Memorandum of statement of accused U/s 281 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he has refuted the allegations levelled against him in toto. Accused chose not to lead any defence evidence in his favour.
8. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.
9. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. 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.
10. As per the prosecution case, seizure memo of the liquor Ex.PW2/B was prepared before the preparation of the Rukka. However, the said documents would show that it contained the number of the FIR. It shows the serious infirmity in the case of prosecution as either the number of the FIR was inserted later on or it was prepared before the time it has been shown to have been prepared. Be that as it may the same creates a reasonable doubt in the story of prosecution. The reliance is placed on the judgment of Giri Raj Vs. State 83 (2000) FIR No. 190/10 PS Badarpur 4 of 7 State vs. Ratna DLT 201, Mohd. Hashim, Appellant Vs. State, 2000 CRI.L.J. 1510, Pawan Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration, 1987 CCC 585 and Mewa Ram Vs. State 2000 CRI.L.J. 114.
11. As per the case of the prosecution, the seal after use was handed over to Ct. Vivekanand i.e. the complainant and was not given to any independent public person. Therefore 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, Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of Goa (2005) 9 SCC 773 and Bijay Vs. State (G.N.C.T. of Delhi), 2011 VI AD (DELHI) 562.
12. Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, provides that the hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty shall be entered vide a separate entry and this entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter 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 FIR No. 190/10 PS Badarpur 5 of 7 State vs. Ratna entry of the police officials their presence at the spot cannot be believed. Reference can be made to on Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29.
13. In the present case, as per PW2 request was made to public persons but no one came forward. However no written notice was served upon them to join the proceedings in the present case or to face action U/sec. 187 IPC. Failure of prosecution to make sincere efforts to join independent witnesses despite their availability causes a serious dent in the story of the prosecution. The reliance is placed on Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana 199 (1) C.L.R. 69 and Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crime 55.
14. It is relevant to note that when the case property was produced before court, it was in unsealed condition and few bottles were broken. In a case of Excise Act, the identity of the case property forms the bedrock of the indictment. Once the same is shrouded in serious suspicion, the case of prosecution cannot be built upon the testimony of remaining formal witnesses in the absence of any independent public witnesses.
15. Therefore, in view of the discussions made herein above and FIR No. 190/10 PS Badarpur 6 of 7 State vs. Ratna the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Ratna stands acquitted of the offence Under Sec. 61 of Punjab Excise Act, he has been charged with. Case property be destroyed after the expiry of the period of appeal. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open court (Anuj Agarwal) on 17.09.12 MM01(SE)/Delhi / 17.09.12 FIR No. 190/10 PS Badarpur 7 of 7