Delhi District Court
State vs Jeetu on 18 December, 2024
THE COURT OF MS. SUKRITI SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04, WEST
ROOM NO. 268, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE
VERSUS
JEETU & ORS CASE No. 9746/2018
FIR No. 559/2016
P.S- Moti Nagar
U/S- 33/52 (2) Delhi Excise
Act, 2009
1. Date of commission of offence : 17.12.2016
2. Name of the Complainant : SI Surender Ahlawat
3. Name of the accused,
and his parentage and residence : (i) Jeetu S/o Sh. Bhagwan Das,
R/o H.No. 17A, Gali No.10,
Vikas Vihar, Vikas Nagar, Delhi
& (ii) Raju S/o Sh. Lala Prasad,
R/o H.NO. WZ (f) 99 Shiva
Enclave Vikas Nagar, Delhi
4. Date when judgment : 19.11.2024
was reserved
5. Date when Judgment : 18.12.2024
was pronounced
6. Offence Complained of : Section 33/52 (2) of Delhi
or proved Excise Act 2009
7. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final Judgment : Acquitted
FIR No. 559/16 State Vs Jeetu etc U/s 33/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 1
1. BRIEF FACTUAL POSITION:-
1.1 The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 17.12.2016, at
about 12.55 pm at Moti Nagar Metro Station, Najafgarh Road within the jurisdiction of PS - Moti Nagar, accused Jeetu was found in possession of illicit liquor on the vehicle bearing registration no. DL8CG-0161without any license, permit or pass and in contravention of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009. The vehicle in question was found registered in the name of accused RAju. Case property was seized and the present case was registered, starting the investigation in the present matter.
1.2. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed on 13.12.2018 indicting the accused Jeetu for commission of the offence U/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 and the accused Raju for commission of the offence U/s 33 r/w 52 (2) of Delhi Excise Act, 2009. Ld. Predecessor took cognizance on 13.12.2018. Copy of the chargesheet in compliance with Section 207 CrPC was supplied to accused persons.
1.3. Charge for the offence U/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 was framed against the accused Jeetu and charge for the offence U/s 33 r/w 52 (2) of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 was framed against the accused Raju on 27.08.2019 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
2.1 The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined 05 witnesses in total. PW Nawal Singh was dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses vide FIR No. 559/16 State Vs Jeetu etc U/s 33/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 2 order of the Ld. Predecessor on 20.02.2023 as he had expired. Separate statement of the accused Raj Kumar u/s 294 CrPC was also recorded on 27.10.2022 and the witnesses no.4, 6, 7 & 8 in the prosecution list of witnesses were dropped by the Ld. Predecessor vide order passed on the same day. The details of the witnesses examined along with documents exhibited thereby are given as under:
S. Name of Documents Dates of Dates of
No. Prosecution Exhibited in examination cross-
witnesses Evidence. -in-chief. examination
PW- SI Surender (i) Form M-19 15.12.2022 06.06.2023 1 Ahlawat - Ex.PW1/A
(ii) Seizure memo of liquor
- Ex.PW1/B U/s 33 r/w 52 (2) Delhi Excise Act
(iii) Seizure memo of vehicle/ car -
Ex.PW1/C
(iv) Rukka/ tehri- Ex.
PW1/D
(v) Site plan -
Ex.PW1/E (vi) GD No. 72 A vide which illicit liquor damaged -
Ex.P1.
(vii) FIR No. 559/16 State Vs Jeetu etc U/s 33/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 3 Photographs of santro car -
Ex.P2 (colly) PW- ASI Rakesh (I) Arrest memo 15.12.2022 15.12.2022 2 - Ex.PW2/A
(ii) Personal Search memo -
Ex.PW2/B
PW- ASI Shiv NIL 16.12.2023 16.12.2023
3 Prasad
PW- ASI Anil (I) Disclosure 08.07.2024 08.07.2024
4 Kumar statement of
accused -
Ex.PW4/A
PW- SI Hareti Lal NIL 25.09.2024 25.09.2024
5
2.2 PW-1 was SI Surender Ahlawat who stated that on 17.12.2016, he was posted
at PS Moti Nagar as SI. On that day, he was present in the PS and at around 09.00- 09.15 AM, he received a secret information regarding involvement of some persons in supplying liquor without licence and permit and it was also apprised by the secret informer that the said person will come in a car bearing registration no. DL-8CG-0161. The said information was briefed to the concerned officer-in-charge of PS and thereupon, a raiding team was orgainised comprising PW-1, HC Anil and HC Shiv Parsad. Afterwards, all the staff members as mentioned above and the secret informer went to nearby Moti Nagar Metro Station. At around 12.00 noon or 12.15 PM, one car bearing the aforesaid registration number came from the side of Raja Garden, Najafgarh Road and thereupon, the secret informer pointed out towards the said car and on this, the driver of the said car was stopped. The said car was being driven by the accused Jeetu who was identified in court. At the same time, some FIR No. 559/16 State Vs Jeetu etc U/s 33/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 4 public persons were requested to join the proceedings but none agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. At the same time, one official from Intelligence of Excise Department namely Amit Guliya also came at the spot and it was apprised by him that he also had the information of supply of liquor in that area but he left the spot immediately as it was further apprised by him that he had one other information and therefore, he has to reach there. Due to paucity of time, notice could not be served upon the said public persons and without wasting time, the said car was checked wherein a large number of cartons were found inside on the front seat, backside seat and also in the deckey. All the cartons were taken out from the said car and there were 45 cartons and out of 33 cartons, bottles bearing English Brand of liquor i.e. mark ADS Spirit Pvt Ltd. (Impact) and the remaining 12 cartons were found containing liquor bearing mark of Asli Santra Masaledar Sharab for sale in Haryana only. The 33 cartons contained 48 quarter b U/s 33 r/w 52 (2) Delhi Excise Act ottles each and 12 cartons contained 50 quarter bottles each. From each brand, one quarter bottle and in total, 2 quarter bottles were taken out as sample and both were moored from bottleneck with white cloth and sealed with seal of SSA. Both the samples were given serial no. S1 and S2 respectively. Further, all the remaining quarter bottles were put in the respective cartons and two cartons were put in one sack and in the same manner the remaining cartons were put in sacks and in such manner 23 sacks were prepared containing the cartons. All were moored from the upper face and each sack was sealed with the seal of SSA. All the said sacks were given serial number 1-23 and in continuation of the same form M-29 was filled by PW-1 at the spot. The recovered liquor was taken into possession vide seizure memo and the abovementioned car was taken into possession vide seizure memo. Seal after use was handed over to HC Shiv Parsad. Thereafter, PW-1 prepared rukka/ tehrir and same was handed over to Ct. Anil for registration of FIR whereupon he got registered the FIR No. 559/16 State Vs Jeetu etc U/s 33/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 5 present case FIR and thereafter, he returned at the spot with the second IO HC Rakesh Kumar to whom further investigation was entrusted who had prepared the site plan at instance of PW-1. Afterwards, he recorded statement of PW-1 and made him free from the further proceedings.
2.3 PW-2 i.e. ASI Rakesh stated that on 17.12.2016, he was posted at PS Moti as HC. On that day, the investigation of the present case was entrusted to him after the registration of FIR and thereupon, he alongwith HC Anil reached at the spot i.e. nearby Moti Nagar Metro Station where first IO SI Surender Ahlawat was already present and the accused namely Jeetu was apprehended by him for having in his possession illicit liquor while supplying the same in a car bearing registration No. DL-8CG-0161. The custody of the accused was handed over to PW-2 and the recovered liquor already sealed was handed over to PW-2 and further PW-2 prepared the site plan at the instance of SI Surender Ahlawat. The disclosure statement of the accused was recorded and further the accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos. After completion of the aforementioned proceedings, the accused alongwith the case property and the car were taken to PS where the case property was deposited by PW-2 with MHC(M) and the accused Jeetu was put behind the bars after getting his medical examination. The statement of whiteness were recorded u/s 161 CrPC and further during investigation the sealed samples were sent to Excise Lab for analysis. Thereafter, PW-2 was transferred from the PS Moti Nagar and therefore, the case was submitted to concerned MHC(R).
2.4 PW-3 was ASI Shiv Prasad who stated that on 17.12.2016, he was posted at PS Moti Nagar as HC. On that day, he along with HC Anil and SI Surender Singh were present at Moti Nagar Metro Station and they were checking the vehicles. SI FIR No. 559/16 State Vs Jeetu etc U/s 33/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 6 Surender was informed by a secret informer regarding a car containing illicit liquor. At around 12.55 P.M, a car was coming on the road from Moti Nagar towards Zakheera. Upon pointing out by the secret informer, SI Surender stopped said car and checked its boot where cartons of illicit liquor were found containing 1104 quarter bottles of Impact liquor and 600 quarter bottles in 12 cartons of Desi Masala liquor. Meanwhile, staff from excise department reached the spot who informed them that they were also following the said car. They had to go for another raid and hence left the spot after signing few documents. Thereafter, IO/SI Surender counted the said quarter bottles, took out one quarter bottle from each carton as sample and sealed the rest with the seal of SSA and gave serial no S1and S2 to them. Thereafter, he prepared the tehrir and sent it to PS for registration of FIR through HC Anil. HC Anil came back to the spot after registration of FIR and handed over the copy of FIR and original Tehrir to the IO. Then accused was brought to the PS and thereafter sent for medical examination with PW-3 and HC Anil. IO handed over his seal to PW-3 after sealing the case property. Illicit liquor was seized by the IO vide seizure memo. IO seized the santro car of the accused vide seizure memo. IO arrested accused Jeetu vide arrest memo and personally searched him vide memo. The witness identified accused Jeetu and stated that he cannot identify accused Raju who was the owner of the car as he was not arrested in his presence.
2.5 PW-4 was ASI Anil Kumar who stated that on 17.12.2016, he was posted at PS Moti Nagar as HC. On that day, he along with HC Shiv Prasad and SI Surender Singh were present at Moti Nagar Metro Station and they were checking the vehicles. SI Surender was informed by a secret informer regarding a car containing illicit liquor. At around 12.55 P.M, a car was coming from the side of Rajouri Garden and going towards Zakheera. Upon pointing out by the secret informer, SI Surender stopped said FIR No. 559/16 State Vs Jeetu etc U/s 33/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 7 car and checked its boot where cartons of illicit liquor were found containing 1104 quarter bottles of Impact liquor and 600 quarter bottles in 12 cartons of Desi Masala liquor. Meanwhile, staff from excise department reached the spot who informed them that they were also following the said car. They had to go for another raid and hence left the spot after signing few documents. Thereafter, IO/SI Surender counted the said quarter bottles, took out one quarter bottle from each carton as sample and sealed the rest with the seal of SSA and gave serial no S1and S2 to them. IO handed over his seal to Shiv Prasad after sealing the case property. Illicit liquor was seized by the IO vide seizure memo. IO seized the santro car of the accused vide seizure memo. Thereafter, he prepared the tehrir and sent it to PS for registration of FIR through PW-4. He took the tehrir to the PS and came back to the spot after registration of FIR with the 2nd IO/ HC Rakesh Kumar and handed over the copy of FIR and original Tehrir to the him. Then 2nd IO prepared the site plan. IO had recorded the disclosure statement of the accused as narrated by him. 2 nd IO had arrested accused Jeetu in presence of PW-4 vide arrest memo and personally searched him.Then accused was brought to the PS and thereafter sent for medical examination with PW-4 and HC Shiv Prasad. The said witness also stated the could not identify accused Raju.
2.6 PW-5 i.e. SI Hareti Lal stated that on 12.11.18, he was posted at PS Moti Nagar as ASI and on that day, present case was marked to him for further investigation. On 05.12.18, he had obtained information about the owner of the car bearing no. DL-8CG-0161 seized in the present case. On 06.12.18, he had served notice u/s 41A CrPC to the owner of the car namely Raju and he was bound down. Upon completion of proceeding, he had filed the chargesheet in the court.
3. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C :
FIR No. 559/16 State Vs Jeetu etc U/s 33/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 8 3.1 After the prosecution evidence was closed, the entire incriminating evidence was put to accused Raju and Jeetu in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. and statements of accused persons were recorded separately on 22.10.2024 wherein they denied the allegations and tendered explanation that they had been falsely implicated. They opted not to lead any DE in their defence.
4. ARGUMENTS:
4.1 Ld. APP for the State has argued that the accused Raju was the registered owner of the car in which illicit liquor was transported by accused Jeetu. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons argued that there is no legally admissible evidence against both accused persons and that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that the recovery itself was not duly proved as no videography, photography, examination of any public witness was done. He submitted that the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted.
5. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS ON MERITS:
5.1 In the present case, the accused Jeetu has been charged with the offence U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act, for being found in possession of illicit liquor without any licence, permit or pass, and in contravention of the notification issued by the Delhi Government and accused Raju has been charged with the offence U/s 33 r/w 52 (2) Delhi Excise Act, for ownership of the vehicle in which the said liquor was being carried.
5.2 Section 33 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 states that:
whoever, in contravention of provisions of this Act or of any rule or order made or notification issued or of any FIR No. 559/16 State Vs Jeetu etc U/s 33/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 9 licence, permit or pass, granted under this Act-
(a) manufactures, imports, exports, transports or removes any intoxicant;
(b) constructs or works any manufactory or warehouse;
(c) bottles any liquor for purposes of sale;
(d) uses, keeps or has in his possession any material, still, utensil, implement or apparatus, whatsoever, for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant other than toddy or tari;
(e) possesses any material or film either with or without the government logo or logo of any State or wrapper or any other thing in which liquor can be packed or any apparatus or implement or machine for the purpose of packing liquor;
(f) sells any intoxicant, collects, possesses or buys any intoxicant beyond the prescribed quantity, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years with fine, which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees which may extend to one lakh rupees.
5.3 Section 52 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 states that:
Where any animal, vessel, cart or other vehicle is used in the commission of an offence under this Act, and is liable to confiscation, the owner thereof shall be deemed to be guilty of such offence and such owner shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly, unless he satisfies the court that he had exercised due care in the prevention of the commission of such an offence.
5.4 This court now proceeds to analyse the evidence adduced in the present case.
Firstly it is noted that all the recovery witnesses have admitted that no public FIR No. 559/16 State Vs Jeetu etc U/s 33/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 10 witnesses were joined in the present enquiry. Regarding the non joining of public witnesses, it is important to revisit the provisions as follows:
5.5 Section 100(4) Cr.P.C states that, "before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate, or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do"....
5.6 Section 37 Cr.P.C. states that, "every person is bound to assist a Magistrate or police officer reasonably demanding his aid-
(a) in the taking or preventing the escape of any other person whom such Magistrate or police Officer is authorized to arrest ; or
(b) in the prevention of suppression of a breach of the peace; or
(c) in the prevention of any injury attempted to be committed to any railway, canal, telegraph or public property".
FIR No. 559/16 State Vs Jeetu etc U/s 33/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 11 5.7 Section 42 Cr.P.C. states that, "when any person who, in the presence of the police officer, has committed or has been accused of committing a non-cognizable offence refuses, on demand of such officer, to give his name and residence, or gives a name or residence which such officer has reason to believe to be false, he may be arrested by such officer in order that his name or residence may be ascertained.
(2) When the true name and residence of such persons have been ascertained, he shall be released on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, to appear before a Magistrate, if so required;
Provided that, if such person is not resident in India, the bond shall be secured by a surety or sureties resident in India.
(3) Should the true name and residence of such person not be ascertained within twenty-four hours from the time of arrest, or should he fail to execute the bond, or, if so required, to furnish sufficient sureties, he shall forthwith be forwarded to the nearest Magistrate having jurisdiction".
5.8 Section 187 IPC states that, FIR No. 559/16 State Vs Jeetu etc U/s 33/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 12 " whoever, being bound by law to render or furnish assistance to any public servant in the execution of his public duty, intentionally omits to give such assistance, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both;
and if such assistance be demanded of him by a public servant legally competent to make such demand for the purpose of executing any process lawfully issued by a Court of Justice, or of preventing the commission of an offence, or of suppressing a riot, or affray, or of apprehending a person charged with or guilty of an offence, or of having escaped from lawful custody, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both".
5. 9 As noted above, it is not the case of the prosecution, in the course of arguments, that no public witnesses were available. All the recovery witnesses have stated that public persons had been asked to join the investigation but none joined. Moreover, if such witnesses were present, IO has failed to explain as to why their names and residence details were not recorded, or why was any notice not issued to them, as per the aforesaid discussed provisions. When a statutory provision mandates that an independent witness has to be joined in FIR No. 559/16 State Vs Jeetu etc U/s 33/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 13 the investigation, the IO is duty bound to comply with the same. At least he should make sincere efforts in this regard. If someone refuses to join the investigation without any justifiable reason, proper notice u/s 187 IPC should be given to him. Merely stating that the public person refused to join the investigation is not sufficient to serve the purpose of the prosecuting agency, more so, when the IO failed to even record the names and details of such person, and failed to take any required steps in terms of Section 37 and 42 of Cr.P.C. Moreover, all the recovery witnesses have mentioned the presence of officials from intelligence of Excise Department, named by PW-1 as Mr. Amit Guliya. Despite such important official witness having prior information regarding the illicit liquor and being present at the spot, such official was neither included in the list of prosecution witnesses by both Ios, neither has the State made any effort to implead such witness once named by th other prosecution witnesses in their court testimony. Such witness would have given vital testimony in the present matter. PW-3 & PW-4 even stated that such witness had signed a few documents but the prosecution never brought forth any such documents in the course of evidence.
5.10 In the case of Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under;
" 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".
5.11 In the present case such sincere efforts have not been shown and there is a vital omission on part of the prosecution to include an important eye witness from FIR No. 559/16 State Vs Jeetu etc U/s 33/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 14 the Excise Department.
5.12 There are further discrepancies inter se among the testimonies given by thte prosecution witness examined. For instance, PW-1 stated in his examination in chief that the car had come to the spot at around 12.00-12.15 pm whereas PW-3 and PW-4 state that the same had happened around 12.55 pm. Moreover, PW-1 could not recall either the time when he left the PS or the DD number regarding such departure. Meanwhile, PW-3 stated that he left the PS at around 11.00 am whereas PW-4 stated that he had left around 09.15 am. Further PW-1 stated that PW-4 had left the spot with the rukka with the registration of FIR at around 02.45 pm and came back at around 04.30 pm. On the other hand, PW-2 stated that PW-1 himself had left the spot altogether at around 04.30 pm, which would leave no time between the arrival of the FIR and the remaining proceedings before PW-1 leaving the spot. Moreover, PW-2 also stated that he reached the spot at around 03.45 pm and PW-3 stated that PW-4 had come back to the spot alongwith the rukka at around 03.15 pm and he left the spot finally at about 05.30 pm. Lastly, PW-4 stated that rukka was taken by him at 02.145 pm and brought back at 03.30 pm. He left the spot finally at 04.20 pm. These discrepancies between the time of arrival and departure was never reconciled by the prosecution.
5.13 There are other discrepancies such as the sequence in which proceedings were concluded. PW-2 did not make any mention of how the accused was brought to the PS or taken for medical examination. PW-3 also did not make any such mention, however, PW-4 claimed that he had taken the accused to the hospital for medical examination alongwith PW-3. The same was not duly corroborated. Moreover, PW-2 claimed that the case property was taken to the PS in a cycle rickshaw and car was FIR No. 559/16 State Vs Jeetu etc U/s 33/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 15 driven to the PS by PW-3 alone. PW-3 did not state anything regarding driving the car back to the PS and did not remember how the case property was taken to the PS. These discrepancies also were not resolved.
5.14 Regarding the seal on the property, it is stated by all recovery witnesses that the samples were seized with the seal of SSA and two sample bottles were produced in the court bearing seal of SD. PW-1 has stated that the seal was handed over to PW-3 after sealing the said property and it appears that no seal handing over memo was prepared. It is also conceded that the seal was not handed over to any independent witnesses, and remained with the police officials of same PS. Thus, the possibility of case property being tampered with is extremely strong, and cannot be ignored and therefore manipulation of the said sample or seized property can not be ruled out.
5. 15 Additionally, seizure memo is stated to have been made prior to registration of FIR by all the witnesses. PW-4 also admitted in his cross examination that IO had prepared the seizure memo of the illicit liquor in one go and that no addition had been made to this document after preparing it. However, the same bears complete particulars of the present case FIR. This raises doubt on the proceedings as the implication is that either the FIR was registered prior in time or the document in question was prepared later on at the PS. In both cases, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused person.
5.16 Most importantly, the very existence of violation of the excise policy has been brought into question as only two quarter bottles among those seized were sent for chemical analysis and found to contain alcohol. The presence of alcohol in the FIR No. 559/16 State Vs Jeetu etc U/s 33/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 16 remaining allegedly recovered liquor bottles and most of the carstons has not been proved by the prosecution. Now, since the State has only found two bottles containing 180 ml alcohol eacah, allegedly recovered from the accused, an offence under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 cannot be said to have been made out, as the same falls within the maximum permissible limit specified under Rule 20 of the Delhi Excise Rules, 2010. No batch number of the remaining bottles corresponding to the sample seems to have been noted to indicate similarity of contents.
5.17 The pre-requisite to hold any person guilty under Section 52 (2) of the Excise Act is that the accused must be the owner of the vehicle which has been used in the commission of the offence under Delhi Excise Act. However, since there is no cogent material on record to sufficiently show the culpability of accused Jeetu for offence u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act, no culpability can be cast upon accused Raju for ownership of the vehicle from which the said liquor was alleged recovered.
5.18 In view of the aforesaid discussion, the recovery as alleged by the prosecution i.e. illicit liquor from the possession of the accused namely Jeetu cannot be stated to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further, in regards to the allegations upon the co-accused namely Raju who has been charged, u/s 52 (2) of Delhi Excise Act, it was imperative for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt upon the main accused Jeetu and it was only then that the liability of committing the offence could be fastened upon the co-accused Raju. Since, the alleged recovery from the main accused Jeetu itself could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, hence the question of fastening the liability of the co-accused Raju u/s 52(2) of Delhi Excise Act does not arise.
5.19 The cardinal principal of law cannot be forgotten that the prosecution has to FIR No. 559/16 State Vs Jeetu etc U/s 33/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 17 prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The standard of proof in criminal cases is not preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond all reasonable doubts. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that culpability cannot be established on surmises and conjectures but it should rest on cogent, reliable and clinching evidence, dispelling every doubt and bulwarking the fact that in all possibility, the offence must have been committed by the accused. In the present case it is apparent, that the case of the prosecution suffers from several glaring loopholes. Under the circumstances, it would not be proper to convict the accused persons Jeetu and Raju merely on the basis of inconsistent testimonies of the police officials. Hence, accused persons namely Jeetu S/o Sh. Bhagwan Das, R/o H.No. 17A, Gali No.10, Vikas Vihar, Vikas Nagar, Delhi & Raju S/o Sh. Lala Prasad, R/o H.NO. WZ (f) 99 Shiva Enclave Vikas Nagar, Delhi, are acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 33/52 (2) of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009, on the basis of benefit of doubt.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN SUKRITI Digitally signed by
SUKRITI SINGH
COURT ON 18.12.2024 SINGH Date: 2024.12.19
17:51:05 +0530
(SUKRITI SINGH)
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-04/WEST/
TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI
Digitally signed
Containing 18 pages, all signed by the presiding officer by SUKRITI
SUKRITI SINGH
SINGH Date:
(SUKRITI SINGH)
2024.12.19
17:51:09 +0530
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-04/WEST/
TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI
FIR No. 559/16 State Vs Jeetu etc U/s 33/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 18