Delhi District Court
State vs Karan Singh on 30 October, 2025
STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH
IN THE COURT OF MS. PARUL SHARMA
JMFC-13, DWARKA COURT (SOUTH WEST), NEW
DELHI
DLSW020606152023
STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH
FIR No. 349/2022
P.S Chhawla
Case No. 12975/2023
Date of commission of offence 23.07.2022
Date of institution of the case 25.11.2023
Name of the complainant Ct. Manoj
Name of accused and address Karan Singh S/o Late
Sh. Bhuri
R/o H.No. B-49, Qutub
Vihar Phase-1, New
Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved U/s 33 Delhi Excise
Act
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final order Acquitted
Date when reserved for judgment 15.10.2025
Date of judgment 30.10.2025
Cr. No. 12975/2023 FIR No. 349/2022 Page no. 1/14
Digitally signed
by PARUL
PARUL SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.10.30
15:42:10 +0530
STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS:
1 The present case pertains to prosecution of accused Karan Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'), pursuant to charge sheet filed qua him under Section 33 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to 'Act') subsequent to the investigation carried out in FIR No. 349/2022 PS: Chhawla.
2 It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.07.2022, at about 10:45 PM, at B-49 Qutub Vihar, Phase-I, the accused was found in possession of illicit liquor without any permit or licence. The same were seized by the police officials as per seizure memo Ex. PW1/B, and thereafter, an FIR was registered qua the accused. After investigation, the police filed the present charge sheet against the accused for commission of offence punishable u/s 33/38 of the Act. 3 Upon appearance, complete set of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused.
Arguments were heard pursuant to which charge for offence punishable u/s 33 of the Act was framed qua the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Further, the accused vide his statement recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C admitted the genuineness of copy of FIR Cr. No. 12975/2023 FIR No. 349/2022 Page no. 2/14 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.10.30
15:42:16
+0530
STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH
No. 349/2022 Ex A1, certificate u/s 65B of IEA alongwith endorsement on rukka Ex. A2. EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
4 Three witnesses in total were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. Following oral and documentary evidences were led by the prosecution:-
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 Ct. Manoj PW-2 HC Jagjeet Singh PW-3 ASI Sunil Kumar DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Statement of Ct. Manoj Ex. PW1/A Seizure memo of case Ex. PW1/B property and samples Site plan Ex. PW1/C Arrest memo of accused Ex. PW1/D Search memo of accused Ex. PW1/E Disclosure statement of Ex. PW1/F accused Seal handing over memo Ex. PW1/G Form M-29 Ex. PW3/A Tehrir Ex. PW3/B Case property Ex. P1 Photograph of the remaining Ex. P2 case property Destruction Order bearing no. Ex. P3 F.CONF./2022/9936-37 dt.
09.06.2023
Cr. No. 12975/2023 FIR No. 349/2022 Page no. 3/14
Digitally signed
by PARUL
SHARMA
PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.10.30
15:42:20
+0530
STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH
5 PW-1 Ct. Manoj deposed that on 23.07.2022, he was posted as Constable at PS Chhawla. On that day, he was on patrolling duty. At about 10:45 PM, when he reached B-Block Qutub Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi, he saw a person carrying a white plastic sac and upon seeing him, she scared and tried to escape into B-49 house. Upon suspicion, he tried to stop him and checked the sac.
Upon checking the plastic sac, illicit liquor was found and the said person revealed his name as Karan Singh. Information about the incident was given at PS. Thereafter he deposed about the investigation carried out by the IO.
6 PW-1 was cross-examined wherein he stated that his duty timing were 08:00 PM to 08:00 AM and he was the beat officer since June 2022 and remained there till Nov. 2022. He further deposed that he left for patrolling duty at about 08:10 PM and reached at the spot at 10:40 PM and the spot was a residential area. He further deposed that he informed about recovery of illicit liquor at about 10:45 PM and IO reached at the spot on his personal vehicle at about 11:30 PM alongwith seal, file and IO kit. He further deposed that he did not take any photograph of accused at the time of incident and do not rememeber the color of clothes worn by accused at the Cr. No. 12975/2023 FIR No. 349/2022 Page no. 4/14 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.10.30 15:42:25 +0530 STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH time of incident. He did not record statement of any public witness.
7 PW-2 HC Jagjeet Singh deposed that on 03.04.2023, on transfer of ASI Sunil Kumar, the case was marked to him for investigation. He prepared the charge-sheet and filed it before the Court.
8 PW-3 ASI Sunil Kumar deposed that on 23.07.2022, he was posted as ASI at PS Chhawla. On that day, on receipt of DD no. 132A he went to the spot i.e. B-49, Qutub Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi, where he met Ct. Manoj who produced plastic katta and accused to him. He requested 3-4 public persons to join the investigation but they refused citing personal reasons. No written notice could be served upon them. He checked the plastic katta and found 27 quarter bottles of illicit liquor make of some NV Rasela Santra, Knight blue and Rayseven for sale in Haryana only and took out three quarter bottles as sample. He further deposed that he sealed the sample as well as case property with the seal of 'SK' and put remaining bottles in the plastic katta. He filled Form M-29 Ex.PW3/A and seal was handed over to Ct. Manoj after use. He further deposed that he recorded statement of Ct. Manoj Ex.PW1/A, prepared tehrir Ex.PW3/B, prepared site plan at the instance of Ct. Manoj already Ex.PW1/C, arrest memo of accused Cr. No. 12975/2023 FIR No. 349/2022 Page no. 5/14 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.10.30
15:42:29
+0530
STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH
Ex.PW1/D, personally search of accused Ex.PW1/E, disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW1/F and seal handing over memo Ex.PW1/G. Thereafter, they returned to PS alongwith case property and accused and case property was deposited in Malkhana. He recorded statements of witnesses. Thereafter, he got transferred from PS Chhawla and handed over case file to MHCR. 9 PW-3 was cross-examined wherein he stated that the accused was apprehended with illicit liquor from a residential area. He requested 3-4 public persons to join the investigation but they refused citing personal reasons. Due to paucity of time, no written notice could be served upon them. Ct. Manoj went to PS alongwith tehrir at around 01:20AM and returned to the spot at about 02:15AM.
10 On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C, PW at serial no. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 as per list of prosecution witnesses were dropped and formal proof of the documents sought to be proved by them was dispensed with.
11 Thereafter PE was closed.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C: 12 Statement of the accused u/s 313 read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded separately in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were Cr. No. 12975/2023 FIR No. 349/2022 Page no. 6/14 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.10.30 15:42:34 +0530 STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH put to him. The accused denied all the allegations levelled against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Accused further opted not to lead any evidence in his defence, hence DE was closed. FINAL ARGUMENTS:
13 Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their testimony has remained unrebutted. It has been further argued that on the combined reading of the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses, offence u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 14 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused and that the accused has been falsely implicated by the police officials. It has been further argued that and the recovery of illicit liquor has been planted upon him. Ld. counsel has inter-alia submitted that since no public witnesses were joined by the police officials during investigation and no recovery photographs were also taken on record by the investigating officer, hence the recovery of alleged illicit liquor is highly doubtful. Further, due to lacunae and incoherency in the story of the prosecution, accused be given the benefit of doubt and is therefore entitled for an acquittal.
Cr. No. 12975/2023 FIR No. 349/2022 Page no. 7/14
Digitally
signed by
PARUL
PARUL SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.10.30
15:42:39
+0530
STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH
15 Submissions have been heard and considered. Records of the case have been duly perused.
APPLICABILITY OF LAW, APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS:
16 Accused is indicted herein for the offence under Section 33 of the Act. The said provision is reproduced as follows:
"33. Penalty for unlawful import, export, transport, manufacture, possession, sale, etc.
--
1 Whoever, in contravention of provision of this Act or of any rule or order made or notification issued or of any licence, permit or pass, granted under this Act--
16.a manufactures, imports, exports, transports or removes any intoxicant;
16.b constructs or works any manufactory or warehouse;
16.c bottles any liquor for purposes of sale;
16.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;
16.e possesses any material or film either with or without the Government logo or logo of any State or wrapper or Cr. No. 12975/2023 FIR No. 349/2022 Page no. 8/14 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.10.30 15:42:44 +0530 STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH any other thing in which liquor can be packed or any apparatus or implement or machine for the purpose of packing any liquor;
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 and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to one lath rupees."
Section 52 of Act lays down a rebuttable presumption which is reproduced as follows-
"Section 52. Presumption as to commission of offence in certain cases:
1 In prosecution under section 33, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the accused person has committed the offence punishable under that section in respect of any intoxicant, still, utensil, implement or apparatus, for the possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily."
17 Burden of proof u/s 101 Indian Evidence Act always lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Also, it is well settled that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the Cr. No. 12975/2023 FIR No. 349/2022 Page no. 9/14 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.10.30 15:42:48 +0530 STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH prosecution story and such doubt entitles him to acquittal. Going by the said principle, case of the prosecution is suffering from multiple inconsistencies and incoherencies thereby rendering its version highly incredible. The said discrepancies are discussed hereinafter one by one.
A) Doubtful recovery of illicit liquor
18 The magna carta for raising presumption u/s 52 of the Act is the recovery of alleged articles from the possession of the accused. It has been admitted by all the prosecution witnesses in a single breath that alleged recovery of illicit liquor from the accused was effected from a residential area. Further, no public person joined as a witness to the said recovery and no notice was given for the said refusal/non-compliance. Despite fully aware about the provision contained under Section 100 Cr.P.C, no sincere attempts were made by the IO to join public witnesses in the present case. The alleged recovery was neither photographed nor video graphed. Failure of the IO to take any such steps creates a reasonable doubt over the alleged recovery from the possession of the accused. (Reliance placed on the case of "Anoop Joshi vs. State", 1999 (2) C.C Cases 314 (HC) and "Sadhu Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1997) 3 Cr. No. 12975/2023 FIR No. 349/2022 Page no. 10/14 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.10.30 15:42:52 +0530 STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH Crimes 55 (PH)) B). Doubtful Seizure Memo and Form M-29.
19 Appearance of FIR number on the seizure memo, Form M-29 i.e. documents which were purportedly prepared prior to the registration of subject FIR, also raises serious doubts over the genuineness and veracity of FIR itself. No explanation has been rendered by the prosecution on the said aspect. It is not even the case that the same, on the face of it, appears to have been written in separate ink or at some left-over space. Rather, it appears to have been recorded in same continuity, handwriting and ink as rest of the contents of it. This leads to the irresistible conclusion that either the FIR was registered prior to the alleged recovery of the illicit liquor, or that the said documents were prepared later in point of time. In either of the scenarios, a hole is punched in the version of the prosecution. (Reliance placed on the case of Lalit v. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri. L.J. 127 and Mohd. Hashim vs State, 82 (1999) DLT 375) C) Possibility of tampering with the seal 20 After sealing the case property and the samples of illicit liquor with seal of 'SK', the aforesaid seal was handed over to Ct. Manoj. However, Ct. Manoj was a recovery Cr. No. 12975/2023 FIR No. 349/2022 Page no. 11/14 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.10.30 15:42:57 +0530 STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH witness and had apprehended the accused. He was also subsequently a part of the investigation in the present case. Thus, the seal was not handed over to any independent witness and it remained in the possession of police officials of the same PS. Therefore seal was well within the reach of the IO. Hence, the possibility of tampering with the seal cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, alleged recovered bottles of liquor were not bearing any specific marks to show that the said case property was recovered from the possession of the accused. Since the seal remained in the possession of police officials, hence the particulars of the case property mentioned on the katta could have been written anytime and thus there is every possibility of tampering and manipulation. (Reliance placed on the case of Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2007 (3) RCR (CRIMINAL) 452 and Safiullah v. State, (1993) 49 DLT
193) D) Other unexplained Discrepancies
21 Illicit liquor samples were seized on 23.07.2022 however the said samples were sent for examination only on 01.08.2022. During the said intervening period, the said samples were kept in the police station itself and the seal of the case property also remained in the possession of Cr. No. 12975/2023 FIR No. 349/2022 Page no. 12/14 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.10.30 15:43:04 +0530 STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH police officials. Tampering with the samples during the said intervening period cannot be ruled out. Further, delay in sending over the samples for chemical examination is also unexplained.(Reliance placed on Dattu Ram vs. State (Delhi): 1996(1) Crimes 604, Dhanpat vs. State of Punjab: 2000 (1) CC Cases HC 52 and Chandra Wati vs. State (Delhi) :1991 (44) DLT 31) 22 Excise result was obtained only qua the samples seized wherein the presence of alcohol/country made liquor is confirmed. The presence of alcohol in the remaining allegedly recovered bottles has not been proved by the prosecution. It is further not the case of prosecution that contents of all the bottles were mixed and a representative sample was drawn therefrom which was sent for chemical examination. Presence of alcohol has been found in only three sample bottles allegedly recovered from the accused. Thus, offence u/s 33 of the Act cannot be said to be made out since it falls within the permissible limit specified under Rule 20 of the Delhi Excise Rules, 2010. (Reliance placed on Nagesh S/O Ningaiah vs. The State of Karnataka, Criminal Revision Petition No. 772/2009 decided on 31.01.2014) 23 Lack of efforts by the IO to trace out the source of alleged illicit liquor seized also raises serious doubts over the story of the prosecution. Hence, the Cr. No. 12975/2023 FIR No. 349/2022 Page no. 13/14 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.10.30 15:43:12 +0530 STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH investigation itself is hasty, unreliable and shoddy. CONCLUSION 24 In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove any cogent and reliable piece of evidence to bring home guilt of the accused for offence u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act.
Further due to several lacunas in the prosecution story, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, thus entitling him for acquittal in the present case.
25 Accordingly, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused for the offence u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act and holds the accused not guilty of commission of the said offence. Accused Karan Singh is thus, acquitted of the offence u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act.
26 Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the accused. Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA Announced in the open court on 30.10.2025. SHARMA Date:
2025.10.30 15:43:16 +0530 (Parul Sharma) JMFC-13 South West District Dwarka Courts, New Delhi 30.10.2025 It is certified that this judgment contains 14 pages, all signed by the undersigned.
Cr. No. 12975/2023 FIR No. 349/2022 Page no. 14/14