Delhi District Court
State vs Dhanpat on 6 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT GARG JMFC-08 PHC/ND
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CR case no.3592/2024
State Vs. Dhanpat
FIR no.434/2023
PS Delhi Cantt.
JUDGMENT
Date of the Commission of offence 22.12.2023 Date of Institution of the case 07.06.2024 Date of reserving the judgment 06.04.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment 06.04.2026 Name of the Complainant Ct. Rajesh Name of Accused, their Parentage Sh. Dhanpat S/o Sh.
Chhitti R/o house no. Gali
no. 3, Hari Nagar, Near by
Aggarwal Sweet Delhi
Offences complained of or proved U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act
Plea of accused Plead not guilty and
claimed trial
Final order Acquittal
ANKIT
GARG
Digitally signed by
ANKIT GARG
Date: 2026.04.06
16:20:28 +0700
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Succinctly, the story of prosecution is that on 22.12.2023 at about 07:35 PM at NH-48 in front of metro pillar no. 159 Gurugram to Dhaula Kuan Delhi, within the jurisdiction of P.S Delhi Cantt, accused was found in possession of 24 bottles of illicit liquor make Magic Moment Pure Green Vodka and Loyal Classic Premium Whiskey for Sale in Haryana only of 750 ML each as per seizure memo which he possessed without any licence or permit issued by Delhi Excise Department and thereby committed an offence u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act.
2. On the basis of the charge-sheet and materials on record, prima facie, a cognizable case was made out, therefore, cognizance of the offence u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act were taken and accused was summoned to face trial.
3. Upon appearance of the accused before the Court, they were supplied with copies of charge-sheet and other documents sought to be relied upon by the prosecution and compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. was made.
4. Charge for offences u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act was framed against accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and thereafter, the case was listed for PE.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE ANKIT
GARG
Digitally signed
by ANKIT GARG
Date:
2026.04.06
16:20:33 +0700
5. In order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution examined 03 witnesses. The deposition of the witnesses are reproduced as under:
5.1 PW1 Ct. Rajesh has appeared before the court and his deposition is reproduced as under:
On 22.12.2023 1 was posted as Ct. at PS Delhi Cantt. On that day I was on motorcycle patrolling duty vide DD no. 12 PP in the area of Subroto Park at around 7.30 PM when I reached Jharera Village near Dhula Kuan Chowki, I noticed one person coming from Gurgaon and going towards Dhula Kuan who was carrying red color bag on his head. On suspicion I tried to approach him but after seeing me, he is tried to flee away from there. I chased him and apprehended him. I enquried about the said bag. He did not give the satisfactory reply and I checked the bag and found il-licit liquor in the same. I informed the DO, after sometime 10/HC Suraj came to the spot. I produced the accused who disclosed his name Dhanpat and handed over the recovered red bag which was in the possession of the accused. IO checked the bag and found 12 bottles of magic moment pure grain vodka, 750 ML each for sale in Haryana only and other cartoon having 12 wisky bottles (Royal Challenge classic premium wisky, 750 ML. each) for sale in Haryana only. 10 took out one bottle of each brand as sample. IO sealed both the sample bottles with the seal of SP. Rest 22 bottles put in white plastic katta and month of the same tied with help of cloth and sealed the same with the seal of SP. 10 filled M29 form and prepared seizure memo. Seizure memo is now ExPW1/A bearing my signature at point A. 10 recorded my statement. My statement is now ExPW1/B. IO prepared rukka of the same. 10 handed over me the rukka for the registration of FIR. I left Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT GARG GARG Date:
2026.04.06 16:20:37 +0700 for the PS and came after sometime. I handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to IO. 10 prepared site plan at my instance. Site plan is now ExPWI/C bearing my signature at point A. 10 handed over the seal after it use vide memo ExPW1/D bearing my signature at point A. IO bound down the accused u/s 41 A Crpc. Thereafter we left the spot. Case property were deposited in malkhana PS. IO recorded my statement.
Accused present in the court and correctly identify by the wit-ness. I can identify the case property if shown to me.
At this stage MHC(M) brought one order no. F.comf/Misc/2024/4240-4248 dated 11.06.2024. As per the order the case property involved in the present case has already been destroyed. However two sample bottles had been precured at the time of de-struction. MHC(M) brought two bottles, one having lebel Royal challenge (for sale in Haryana only) and other is Magic Moment (for in sale Haryana only). Both having particular of the present case. Witness has correctly identify the same as recovered one. Case property is now ExP1 (colly). Destruction order is now taken on record and now marked as Mark X. XXX by Nishant Bhardwaj LD counsel for the accused.
Spot is a public place. IO asked 4-5 public persons to join the in-vestigation but they refused to join the same. IO did not serve no-tice to them. 10 did not record their names. 10 kept his seal with him after it use. I did not offer my search prior to conducting the search of accused. The spot is not under the CCTV surveillance. We finally left the spot at around 10. 10 also seized the bag in which the illicit liquor was found. 10 reached at the spot at around 8.00 PM. At time of incident I was having multimedia phone but its camera was not working. IO did not click photos of the case property It is wrong to suggest that nothing was recov-ered from the possession of the accused. It is wrong to suggest that the case property was planted upon the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely 5.2 PW2 Act. Sanjay has appeared before the court and his deposition is reproduced as under:
On 29.12.2023 1 was posted as Ct. at PS Delhi Cantt. On that day on the direction of 10 I collected the sealed sample involved in the present case along with M29 form vide Re no. 192/21/23. 1 deposited the same in Excise laboratory, ITO Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. I obtained the receiving on the RC. RC is now Mark-Y I deposited the receiving with MHC(M). The sample were un-tempered till the same was in my custody. 10 recorded my state-ment.
XXX by Nishant Bhardwaj LD counsel for the accused.
Nil. Opportunity given 5.3 PW3 HC Suraj has appeared before the court and his deposition is reproduced as under:
On 22.12.2023 I was posted as HC at PS Delhi Cantt DD no. 99 was assigned to me. I reached the spot ie. Jharera Village near Dhula Kuan Chowki. Ct. Rajesh produced the accused who disclosed his name Dhanpat and handed over me the recovered red bag which was recovered from the possession of the accused. I checked the bag and found 12 bottles of magic moment pure grain vodka, 750 ML each for sale in Haryana only and other cartoon having 12 wisky bottles (Royal Challenge classic premium wisky. 750 ML. each) for sale in Haryana only. I took out one bottle of each brand as sample. I sealed both the sample bottles with the seal of SP. Rest 22 bottles put in white plastic katta and month of the same tied with help of cloth and sealed the same with the seal of SP. I filled M29 form, same is now Ex.PW3/A bearing my signature at point A. I handed over the seal after its use to Ct. Rajesh vide seal handing over memo already Ex.PWI/D bearing my signature at point B. I prepared seizure memo. Seizure memo is already ExPWI/A bearing my signature at pointed B. 1 recorded the statement of Ct. Rajesh and prepared rukka which is now Ex. PW3/B bearing my signature at point A. 1 handed over the rukka for the registration of FIR to Ct. Rajesh. He left for the PS and came after sometime/handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to me. I prepared site plan at his instance. Site plan is already ExPW1/C bearing my signature at point B. I bound down the accused u's 41 A Cr.PC and gave notice to him which is Ex.PW3/C bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter we left the spot. Case property were deposited in malkhana PS. I recorded the statement of accused After completion of investigation I submitted the chargsheet before the court I can identify the case property if shown to me The case property has already been destroyed vide order no. F.com/Misc/2024/4240-4248 dated 11.06.2024. Two. sample bottles were procured at the time of destruction. Same were identified by PWI and Ex.P1 Colly. Further production of the same is now dispend with and not objected by defence counsel.
Identity of the accused is not disputed.
XXX by Nishant Bhardwaj Ld. counsel for the accused.
Spot is a public place. I asked 4-5 public persons to join the in-investigation but they refused to join the same. I did not serve notice to them. I did not record their names. The spot is not under the CCTV surveillance. We finally left the spot at around 10:30 PM. I reached at the spot at around 8.00 PM. At time of incident I was having multimedia phone. I did not click photos of the case property It is wrong to suggest that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused. It is wrong to suggest that the case property was planted upon the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely
6. On 12.02.2025, Statement of accused recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C., FIR alongwith section 65B certificate, Chemical examiner report and DD no. 12 dated 22.12.2023 were admitted and witnesses was dropped from the list of witnesses.
7. After prosecution evidence was concluded, statement of accused person was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. wherein he stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. No liquor was recovered from him. He admitted the genuineness only to avoid summoning formal witnesses and he did not admit the allegations.
8. The accused chose not to lead any evidence in their defence and the same was closed.
9. Final arguments were led on behalf of both the parties.
10. I have heard the final arguments put forth by the Ld. APP for the state and by Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also perused the material available on record.
11. As per the case of prosecution, on 22.12.2023, police official was on patrolling duty and when he reached at Jharera Village near Dhaula Kuan Chowki, he noticed a person coming from Gurgaon and going towards Dhaula Kuan who told his name as Dhanpat and carrying red color bag on his head. Upon suspicion he apprehended him and upon checking found bottles of illicit liquor. The bottles of illicit liquor were seized and then other police officials were informed about the same.
12. In order to establish allegations against the accused, prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW1 to PW3. Admittedly, no public person was associated at the time of recovery of alleged case property. It is admitted case that the spot from where the alleged recovery was effected from the possession of the accused was a public place but IO did not make any efforts to join any public person as a witness to the search the premises allegedly belonging to the accused. Admittedly, no notice was given to the public persons to join the search as mandated in section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. The testimony of official witness does not find corroboration from any independent source. In my view, the non-joining of public witness is fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when no reasonable explanation has been given by the prosecution for non joining of public witnesses. In the case of Chanan Singh Vs. State 1986 Crl. Rev. No.720 (P&H) 94, it was held that it was obligatory on the part of the police to join independent witnesses and the statement of official witness that witnesses refused to join investigation was rejected as an afterthought.
13. It is well settled proposition that non joining of public witness creates doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. Even Section 100 (4) CrPC casts statutory duty upon the official conducting search to join two respectable person of the society, which is not done in the present case.
14. The cardinal principle of criminal law cannot be forgotten that the prosecution has to prove the case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof is not preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled legal proposition that the any benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused.
15. In view of above mentioned discussion, there is reasonable doubt of as to the recovery of the alleged illicit liquor from the possession of the accused. Considering the above facts and circumstance, the prosecution could not establish their case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused Dhanpat is acquitted for offence U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act by giving her benefit of doubt. Case property be confiscated to the State and be destroyed after expiry of period of appeal.
This judgment contains 09 pages and each page is signed by the undersigned.
Announced in the open court
on 06.04.2026 (Ankit Garg)
JMFC-08, PHC, ND