Delhi District Court
State vs . Nannu Lal Page No.1 Of 9 on 17 November, 2016
State Vs. Nannu Lal Page No.1 of 9
IN THE COURT OF DR.JAGMINDER SINGH:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 04 (SOUTH-WEST)
DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. Nannu Lal
FIR No : 184/2011
U/s : 33 (F) Delhi Excise Act
P.S. : Kapashera
JUDGEMENT
1. Sl. No. of the Case : 02405R-037854-2011
2. Date of commission of offence : 18/10/2011
3. Date of institution of the case : 19/01/2012
4. Name of the complainant : HC Ramesh Chand
5. Name of accused, parentage & : 1) Nannu Lal Address S/o Laxman Ram, R/o House of Suresh, Sukhrali, Gurgaon, Haryana &
2) Lal Kumar Singh S/o Sh.Jokhim Singh, R/o House of Suresh, Sukhrali, Gurgaon, Haryana (PO).
6. Offence complained off : u/s 33 (F) Delhi Excise Act
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved: Not reserved
9. Final order : Acquitted
10. Date of final order : 17/11/2016 Brief statement of reasons for decision :
1. In the present case, the allegations against the FIR No. 184/2011 PS : Kapashera State Vs. Nannu Lal Page No.2 of 9 accused persons are that on 18/10/2011 at about 10.00 p.m. in Gali No.7, Salapur Khera, Bijwasan, they were found in possession of 200 quarter bottles of liquor of brand Kinu Masaledar Shraab for sale in Haryana which they were taking on motorcycle bearing no. HR-26-BM-8022 without any permit or licence. At the complaint of complainant, HC Ramesh Chand, the present case was registered and after completion of investigation, charge-
sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offence punishable under section 33 (F) Delhi Excise Act.
2. After taking cognizance, accused persons were summoned. Copy of charge sheet were supplied to them. On the basis of prima-facie evidence, charge framed against both the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 33 (F) Delhi Excise Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial both accused persons were remained absent and were declared Proclaimed Offenders vide order dated 25/11/2014. In January, 2016, the file was revived as accused Nannu Lal was arrested. Thereafter, trial proceeded further and concluded qua accused Nannu Lal.
3. Prosecution has filed the list of 7 witnesses and examined 6 witnesses.
4. PW1 Sh.Naresh is the registered owner of the FIR No. 184/2011 PS : Kapashera State Vs. Nannu Lal Page No.3 of 9 motorcycle bearing No. HR-26-BM-8022, he stated that on 18/10/2011, he had given his motorcycle bearing No. HR-26-BM- 8022 to Nannu Lal and in the morning of 19/10/2011, he came to know that Nannu Lal arrested by the police with his motorcycle in excise case.
5. PW2 HC Ramesh Chander stated that on 18/10/2011 at about 10.00 PM during patrolling, when he was present near Gali No.7, two persons coming from Gurgaon side by motorcycle bearing No. HR-26-BM-8022 and pillion rider caught hold Petti/Gathri. On suspicion, he indicated for stop. He checked the Gathri and found for Petties of illicit liquor which bearing Kinnu Masaledar Desi Shraab for sale in Haryana. He informed to DO by phone at PS. HC Dharam Singh came at spot. He handed over both accused persons, case property & motorcycle to IO. IO recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A. IO checked the recovered Petties and found 50 quarter bottles in each Petti. He separated one quarter bottle from each Petti as a sample and sealed with the seal of DS and seized vide memo Ex.PW2/B. IO seized said motorcycle vide memo Ex.PW2/C. IO prepared Rukka and got the FIR registered through him. IO prepared site plan at his instance. IO arrested and personally searched the accused Nannu vide memos Ex.PW2/D & PW2/E respectively. IO also arrested & FIR No. 184/2011 PS : Kapashera State Vs. Nannu Lal Page No.4 of 9 personally searched accused Lal Kumar (pillion rider) vide memos Ex.PW2/F & PW2/G respectively. IO filed form M-29 at the spot. They returned to PS along with both accused persons and case property. Case property was deposited in Malkhana. IO recorded his supplementary statement. He identified the case property i.e. four petties of liquor and motorcycle i.e. Ex.P1 (Colly) & Ex.P2 respectively.
6. PW3 Ct.Harjinder Singh stated that on 21/10/2011, he received four samples Pullanda from MHC(M) and deposited the same in Excise Laboratory, Vikas Bhawan, ITO vide RC No.94/21 and receipt of the same was handed over to MHC(M).
7. PW4 HC Dharam Singh stated that on 18/10/2011, on receiving DD No.35A, he along with one constable went to spot where HC Ramesh along with accused persons, case property & motorcycle bearing No. HR-26-BL-8022 met them. Thereafter, he deposed the identical version as of PW2/HC Ramesh Chand. He further stated that he prepared Rukka Ex.PW4/A and site plan Ex.PW4/B. After using the seal, he handed over the seal to HC Ramesh. After medical examination, accused persons were put up in Lock up.
8. PW5 Retd. SI Sodan Singh recorded the FIR of the present case, copy of which is Ex.PW5/A. FIR No. 184/2011 PS : Kapashera State Vs. Nannu Lal Page No.5 of 9
9. PW6 HC Kartar Singh stated that on 18/10/2011, IO/HC Dharam Singh deposited the case property in Malkhana and entry regarding this was made in Register No.19 at Sr. No.1158 and photocopy of relevant page of register no.19 is Ex.PW6/A.
10. No other witness was examined by the prosecution. Thereafter, PE was closed. Statement of the accused Nannu Lal was recorded under section 281 Cr.P.C. Accused did not opt for defence evidence. Thereafter, final arguments heard.
11. Ld. APP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused Nannu Lal beyond reasonable doubt. The witnesses have given corroborative statements. Accused is liable to be convicted in this case. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused stated that he is innocent. He had not committed any offence. The alleged recovery of illicit liquor is planted upon him. Witnesses had given false & contradictory statements. Accused is facing the trial of this false case since last more than four years. Therefore, he is liable to be acquitted.
12. I have considered the submissions of both parties. I have also gone through the statements of witnesses and documents placed on record by the prosecution. Briefly stated the allegations against the accused is that he along with co- accused (since PO) was found in possession of illicit liquor which FIR No. 184/2011 PS : Kapashera State Vs. Nannu Lal Page No.6 of 9 they were carrying on a motorcycle. Regarding recovery of the alleged liquor, no any public witness was joined in the investigation by the IO. PW2/complainant in is cross-examination stated that he asked the public persons to join as a witness but they refused due to their personal reason. On the other hand, PW4/IO stated that there was no witness at the spot due to late evening hours. PW2 admitted that the spot is a busy lane and vehicles frequently passed from that place and it is a thorough fare. PW4/IO denied in his cross-examination that the spot was a crowded area or people used to come and go there. The non- joining of the public witness without any reasonable explanation in this regard creates doubt on the story of the prosecution as held in PAWAN KUMAR Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION 1987 CC Cases 585 HC by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
13. PW4/IO in his examination-in-chief stated that on receiving the information regarding the apprehension of liquor and accused, he along with one constable went to the spot. Whereas, PW2 stated that only HC Dharam Singh/PW4 came at the spot. During cross-examination, IO/PW4 himself stated that he went alone at the spot. IO in his cross-examination stated that the call was received by him at about 10.18 PM and the incident took place at about 10.30 PM. It is not clarified by him that how FIR No. 184/2011 PS : Kapashera State Vs. Nannu Lal Page No.7 of 9 he received the call before taking place of the incident. PW2 during cross-examination stated that he reached at PS with Rukka at about 12.05 AM and remained there for about 15-20 minutes i.e. upto 12.20 AM-12.25 AM. On the other hand, PW5/DO stated that it took about one hour for registration of FIR and PW2 had left the PS at about 01.15 AM. Further IO/PW4 stated that he finally left the spot at about 12.30 AM. If according to DO, PW2 left the PS at about 01.15 AM along with FIR to be handed over to IO at the spot, then how IO would have left the spot at about 12.30 AM, it is not clarified by the prosecution. Moreover the time of arrest in arrest memo Ex.PW2/D of the accused is 12.45 AM. IO/PW4 stated that he prepared site plan at the instance of PW2/HC Ramesh Chander but perusal of site plan Ex.PW4/B reveals that there is no name or signature of PW2/HC Ramesh Chander showing his presence as a witness. These contradictions create doubt in the truthfulness of the testimony of the witnesses.
14. As per PW4, the seal after use was handed over to HC Ramesh Chander. But during evidence before the Court, neither HC Ramesh Chander not stated this fact that seal after use was handed over to him. It is also not stated by any witnesses that when the seal was returned back to the IO. No any seal handing FIR No. 184/2011 PS : Kapashera State Vs. Nannu Lal Page No.8 of 9 over memo or return memo was prepared. Therefore, it becomes doubtful that whether the seal was actually handed over to HC Ramesh Chander after its use and whether it was returned back to the IO only after depositing of case property in the Malkhana. As per prosecution story, the IO along with case property & accused persons returned back to the PS and deposited the case property in the Malkhana on 19/10/2011, whereas according to MHC(M) PW6 and the relevant entry of Malkhana register Ex.PW6/A, the case property was deposited in the Malkhana on 18/10/2011. The excise report not placed on record during evidence by the prosecution to prove that the alleged samples taken out from the case property were having the contents of illicit liquor.
15. It is also held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in State Vs. Dharmender Singh Mehta and anr. 2012 V AD (Delhi) 108 that "it is now very well established that in all criminal cases, the prosecution has to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through unimpeachable evidence".
16. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion the Court comes at the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The benefit of doubt goes to accused as per principles of criminal FIR No. 184/2011 PS : Kapashera State Vs. Nannu Lal Page No.9 of 9 justice. Accused Nannu Lal S/o Sh.Laxman Ram stands acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 33(F) of Delhi Excise Act in present case FIR No.184/2011, PS Kapashera.
17. Accused is directed to furnish bail bond and surety bond under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. and is also directed to furnish his latest passport size photographs as well as of his surety alongwith their latest residential proof.
Announced in open court
on 17/11/2016 (Dr. Jagminder Singh)
Metropolitan Magistrate-04/ Dwarka
Delhi/17.11.2016
Note: This judgment contains Nine (09) pages and
having my signature on each page.
(Dr. Jagminder Singh)
Metropolitan Magistrate-04/ Dwarka
Delhi/17.11.2016
FIR No. 184/2011 PS : Kapashera