Delhi District Court
State vs . Kamlesh on 22 April, 2008
FIR No. 385/00 ; PS Anand Vihar 1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJIV JAIN
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, SHAHDARA, DELHI.
State Vs. Kamlesh
FIR No. 385/00
PS Anand Vihar
U/s 61/1/14 of Excise Act
JUDGMENT
SL. No. of the case : 02402R014842003
Date of Institution : 3.8.2001
Date of commission o the offence : 02.12.2000
Name of the complainant : STATE
Name of the accused & his : Smt Kamlesh
parentage & residence. W/o Govind
R/o 7/68, Gali no. 2,
Karkari Road, Vishwas Nagar
Delhi
Offence complained of or proved : 61/1/14 of Excise Act
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Order reserved on : -
Final Order : ACQUITTED
Date of such order : 22.04.2008
A brief statement of the reasons of the decision.
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.12.00 HCt. Ravinder Singh was patrolling with Ct. Vinod and L/ct. Vandana at DVB office, Karkari road. At about 5.30 pm a secret information was received about a lady in FIR No. 385/00 ; PS Anand Vihar 2 possession of illicit liquor in pouches. On this information public persons were requested to join the raiding party but none agreed. At about 6.10 pm they saw the accused holding a plastic bag on her head. At the instance of secret informer she was stopped and the plastic bag was checked, it was found containing 60 pouches of illicit liquor. The liquor in the pouches were transferred in a plastic cane and one half bottle was taken out as sample, the case property and the sample were sealed with the seal of RS, excise form M 29 was filled, a rukka was sent from the spot the case was got registered under Excise Act. Accused was arrested and after completion of investigation she was sent to stand trial.
2. On appearance of the accused after complying with the requirements contemplated U/s 207 CrPC, prima facie case was made out and charge was framed against accused for offence punishable U/s 61/1/14 of Punjab Excise Act. She pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove its case against accused prosecution examined as many as five witnesses. PW1 HC Ravinder Singh the investigating officer as well as recovery witness, PW2 Ct Vinod and Pw3 L/ct. Vandana recovery witnesses who accompanied the IO. Pw4 Ct. Rambir deposited the samples in Excise laboratory and Pw5 conducted the investigation after registration of the case.
4. Pw1, Pw2 and Pw3 in their examination-in-chief reproduced the prosecution story in parrot like manner, proved the documents and correctly identified the case property Ex. P1 to P3. However they in their cross-examination could not even tell the DD number vide which they FIR No. 385/00 ; PS Anand Vihar 3 went on for patrolling. Although they stated that public persons were requested to join the investigation but they refused. But in this case none of the prosecution witnesses stated their names and addresses who were requested to join investigation and whether they initiated any action against those public persons who refused to join the proceedings. Normally, in the cases registered U/s 61/1/14 Punjab Excise Act or Arms Act, this type of statement comes from the mouth of the police officials that public persons were requested to join but none agreed. There is no corroboration to the testimony of police officials by any independent witness.
5. Pw4 Ct Rambir took the samples to excise laboratory and deposited it for chemical analysis vide RC 73/21.
6. Pw5 HC Krishan Kumar reached the spot on receipt of information where HC Ravinder handed over to him accused, case property in sealed condition and relevant documents prepared by him. He prepared site plan Ex. Pw5/A at the instance of HC Ravinder and stated that on his direction L/Ct. Vandana conducted personal search of accused vide memo Ex. PW2/A. He stated that he deposited the case property in malkahana and got the samples sent to excise laboratory
7. The accused in her statement U/s 281 CrPC stated that nothing was recovered from his possession and she was falsely implicated. She examined Ms. Santosh in her defence who stated that police used to visit the house of accused and took her signatures on blank papers on the pretext that they were closing her pending case.
FIR No. 385/00 ; PS Anand Vihar 48. I have heard Ld APP for the State and Ld counsel Sh.N.K. Tyagi for accused and have gone through the evidence on record.
9. In the instant case prosecution did not examine the MHC(M) with whom the case property was deposited as in cross-examination Pw1 has admitted that the lid can be opened without removing the seal to rule out the possibility that the same was not tampered in any manner. Pw3 has stated that she conducted the personal search of accused prior to the registration of case whereas Pw5 who reached the spot after registration of case has stated that the personal search was conducted on his directions. Further accused states that nothing was recovered from her possession and she was falsely implicated in this case and this fact is duly corroborated by the defence witness examined by the accused.
10. In the light of above discussions I am of the view that recovery against the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and accused deserves to be acquitted on benefit of doubt. I order accordingly. Bail bond of accused stands cancelled, surety stands discharged. The case property be confiscated to state after expiry of period of appeal or revision.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22nd day of April, 2008.
(SANJIV JAIN) Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Karkardooma Courts : Shahdara