Delhi District Court
State vs Rajni on 12 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEPAKSHI RANA, JMFC-03
DISTRICT SHAHDARA, KKD, COURT, DELHI
a Serial No. of the case : FIR No. 172/2021 PS Nand Nagri
[CR No. 3525/22]
b Date of the commission of the : 04.03.2021
offence
c Name of the Complainant : HC Mohsin
d Name of Accused person and his : Rajni
parentage and residence W/o Lt. Sanjay Nagiya
R/o B-1/443, Nand Nagri, Delhi
E Offence complained of : 33 Delhi Excise Act
F Plea of the Accused and his : Not guilty.
examination (if any)
G Final Order : Acquitted
H Order reserved on : 26.07.2025
I Order pronounced on : 12.09.2025
1.Vide this judgment, the present FIR bearing No. 172/21 registered with PS Nand Nagri on 04.03.2021 on the statement of complainant against accused person shall be decided and disposed off.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION-:
2. A police report was put up against the accused by the State through Station House Officer of PS Nand Nagri on 26.04.2022 alleging that on 04.03.2021 at 1:45 AM at H. No. B-1/443, Nand Nagri, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Nand Nagri, accused was found in possession of 48 quarter bottles of illicit liquor of Crazy Romeo Deluxe Whisky 180 ml for sale in Haryana without any permit or license and thereby committed an offence U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act.
Trial Proceedings:-
3. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the court on 26.04.2022 under section 33 Delhi Excise Act against the Accused person and on 06.06.2022, cognizance was taken in this matter and accused was summoned FIR No. 172/2021 PS Nand Nagri titled as State v. Rajni 1/9 Digitally signed by DEEPAKSHI DEEPAKSHI RANA RANA Date: 2025.09.12 04:14:14 +0530 to appear before the court to face trial. Upon the appearance in the Court, copy of challan and relevant documents were supplied to her as per the provisions U/s 207 Cr. PC.
4. After hearing detailed arguments, charges under sections 33 Delhi Excise Act were framed upon the Accused on 16.01.2023, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accordingly, matter was taken up for recording prosecution evidence.
5 In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused, Prosecution has examined 04 witnesses as follows:-
PW1 HC Mohsin PW2 W HC Swati PW3 ASI Manoj Kumar PW4 HC Sanjeev It is pertinent to note that in total 07 witnesses had been cited by Prosecution in the list of witnesses whereby HC Mohsin was the complainant. The remaining six witnesses were investigation witnesses including Duty Officer in the PS, investigation /arrest witnesses, MHCM, and IOs.
It may be noted that Duty officer who had registered the FIR, endorsed the rukka and issued the certificate U/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act and Ct. Sunder Lal who had deposited the sample were dropped from list of witnesses vide separate statement of the accused recorded U/s 294 Cr. PC dt. 16.04.2025.
The aforesaid witnesses brought the following documents on record to prove the case of prosecution:-
Ex.PW1/A Seizure memo of case property
Ex.PW1/B Site plan prepared by IO
Ex.PW1/C Disclosure statement recorded by IO
Ex.PW1/D Arrest memo of accused
Ex.PW2/A Pabandinama prepared by IO
FIR No. 172/2021 PS Nand Nagri titled as State v. Rajni 2/9
Digitally signed
by DEEPAKSHI
DEEPAKSHI RANA
RANA Date:
2025.09.12
04:14:27 +0530
Ex.PW3/A Rukka prepared by IO
After examination of all the aforesaid witnesses, PE was closed and the matter was listed for recording of statement of accused U/s 313 Cr. PC.
6. After completion of Prosecution evidence as aforesaid, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded on 10.07.2025 whereby she was put with all the incriminating evidence brought by the prosecution against her. Accused denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that she is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in the present case. She further added that nothing has been recovered from her house or from her. She further added that she has been falsely implicated in the present matter and that she is not even aware why this case has been lodged against her.
When questioned as to whether she wanted to lead evidence in her defence, Accused person answered in negative and thereafter, the matter was listed for final arguments.
Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for accused have addressed their detailed final arguments in this matter.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State while summing up prosecution case, submitted that the accused has been correctly identified by the witnesses and that link evidence is also available. He further urged that the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and thus prayed for conviction of the accused.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused has been falsely implicated by the police and nothing was recovered from her possession. He further pointed out contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses to argue that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubts and thus, she prayed for acquittal of the accused.
FIR No. 172/2021 PS Nand Nagri titled as State v. Rajni 3/9
Digitally signed
by DEEPAKSHI
DEEPAKSHI RANA
RANA Date:
2025.09.12
04:14:38 +0530
9. I have carefully gone through all the records at hand and testimony of the witnesses. After perusal, this court is of the opinion that the point for determination in the present case is whether on 04.03.2021 at 1:45 AM at H. No. B-1/443, Nand Nagri, Delhi accused was found in possession of 48 quarter bottles of illicit liquor of Crazy Romeo Deluxe Whisky 180 ml without any permit or license and in contravention of provisions of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 for the purpose of sale.
10. As per the prosecution on the fateful day, the accused was found in possession of illicit liquor without any permit or license. In order to bring home the guilt against the accused, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt the recovery of illicit liquor from the possession of the accused.
11. Ld. APP for the state has relied upon Section 52 of the Delhi Excise Act. As per Ld. APP for the state, as soon as the accused was charged of commission of the offence punishable under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, a presumption in favour of the prosecution is raised under Section 52 of the Delhi Excise Act. However the said argument does not find favour with this Court. Section 52 of the Delhi Excise Act reads as under:
"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.
(2) 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 FIR No. 172/2021 PS Nand Nagri titled as State v. Rajni 4/9 Digitally signed by DEEPAKSHI DEEPAKSHI RANA RANA Date:
2025.09.12 04:14:47 +0530 that he had exercised due care in the prevention of the commission of such an offence".
12. The words "for the possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily" used in Section 52(1) of the Delhi Excise Act stipulates that as a pre- requisite for the presumption under the aforesaid provision being raised against the accused, it is imperative for the prosecution to successfully establish the recovery of the said alleged articles from the possession of the accused. It is only after the prosecution has proved the possession of the alleged articles by the accused, that the accused can be called upon to account for the same. However, for the reasons mentioned hereinafter the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was found in possession of the alleged illicit liquor. Accordingly, no presumption as provided for under Section 52 of the Delhi Excise Act can be raised against the accused in the present case.
13. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined witnesses i.e. HC Mohsin and W HC Swati for supporting the case of the prosecution. Prosecution has further examined ASI Manoj Kumar and HC Sanjeev i.e. IOs of the present case who further corroborated the case of the prosecution.
14. As per chapter 22 rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules, which is reproduced herein for ready reference:-
''22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No. II The following matters shall, amongst others, be entered :-
(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty. This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal.
Note :- The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained.
In the present case, the above said provision has not been complied with by FIR No. 172/2021 PS Nand Nagri titled as State v. Rajni 5/9 Digitally signed by DEEPAKSHI DEEPAKSHI RANA RANA Date:
2025.09.12 04:14:58 +0530 prosecution. The relevant entries regarding the arrival and departure of the police officials who were members of the raiding party and apprehended the accused person have not been placed on record. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to a case law reported as Rattan Lal V/s State, 1987 (2) Crimes 29 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court it has been held that, "if the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act the courts will have to approach their action with reservations. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if the provisions of law are not strictly complied with and the least that can be said is that it is so done with an oblique motive. This failure to bring on record, the DD entries creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on the part of the prosecution."
15. At this stage, it is pertinent to point out that, there is not even a single public witness to the recovery of the liquor in the list of witnesses. The recovery is alleged to have been effected from B-1/443, Nand Nagri, Delhi. The place of recovery as per site plan is clearly located in an area where public persons would have been readily available. Thus, at the place and time of the alleged recovery of illicit liquor, public persons would in all likelihood have been present and available or have at least passed by the spot.
16. It is pertinent that accused was correctly identified by the police witnesses i.e. PW-1 HC Mohsin, W/ HC Swati, ASI Manoj Kumar and HC Sanjeev during their testimonies recorded on oath before the court. Furthermore, accused was arrested from outside the house. Interestingly, no independent witness is there to substantiate the prosecution story.
17. It is not the case of the prosecution that no public person was present at or near the spot of arrest and recovery. Further, PW-3 had stated in his examination in chief that he requested the public persons to join the investigation however, they refused to join the investigation. He further added that due to paucity of time, no FIR No. 172/2021 PS Nand Nagri titled as State v. Rajni 6/9 Digitally signed by DEEPAKSHI DEEPAKSHI RANA RANA Date: 2025.09.12 04:15:11 +0530 notice was given to the said persons. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the police officials had tried to serve any notice under Section 160 Cr. PC. upon the persons who refused to join the investigation or had taken any pains to join them in inquiry. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that any serious effort was made by police official to join public witnesses in the proceedings. It is a well settled proposition that non-joining of public witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. Section 100 (4) of the Cr. PC also casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society. Same has not been done in the present case. This casts a doubt on the fairness of the investigation.
18. This Court is, however, conscious that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non-joining of public witnesses as public witnesses keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable, as has been held in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. However, in the present case, it is not only the absence of public witnesses which raises a doubt on the prosecution but there are other circumstances too, as discussed hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the prosecution version.
19. As per the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the sample of liquor and case property were sealed with the seal of MK. Further, the seal in the present case was not handed over to any independent witness nor was it deposited in the malkhana to assail the possibility of its misuse. It is stated by the Witnesses that seal was handed over to HC Mohsin after use, however no handing over memo qua the same has been prepared and placed on the record by the prosecution for the reasons best known to itself. Thus, the possibility that the case property may have been tampered with cannot be ruled out.
20. Moving ahead, PW-3 HC Manoj Kumar had deposed that seizure memo Ex.
FIR No. 172/2021 PS Nand Nagri titled as State v. Rajni 7/9
Digitally signed
by DEEPAKSHI
DEEPAKSHI RANA
RANA Date:
2025.09.12
04:15:29 +0530
PW-1/A was prepared before the rukka was sent to the police station for registration of the FIR in his examination in chief. The FIR was, therefore, admittedly registered after the preparation of seizure memo Ex. PW-1/A. Accordingly, it follows that the number of the FIR would have come to the knowledge of the PW-3 only after a copy of the FIR was brought to the spot by PW-1. Thus, ordinarily, the FIR number should not find mention in the seizure memo, which came into existence before registration of the FIR. However, interestingly, the seizure memo Ex. PW-1/A bear the FIR number and case details. The same indicates that FIR number was mentioned on the said document while preparing the same as even the witnesses have mentioned in their testimony that no alterations were made with the document. No explanation has been furnished on record as to how the FIR number and case details have appeared on the seizure memo Ex. PW 1/A. The same leads to inference that either the said document was prepared later or that the FIR had been registered earlier in point of time. In both the aforesaid cases a dent is created and unexplained holes are left in the prosecution story, the benefit of which must accrue to the accused.
21. No Photography or Videography was done at the spot for the alleged seizure of illicit liquor recovered in such a big quantity further raises suspicion upon the prosecution story.
22. The facts that no independent witness was cited or examined, the appearance of FIR number and case particulars on the seizure memo Ex. PW1/A remaining unexplained, contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and non involvement of public witness present, when kept in juxtaposition to each other, cast a cloud of suspicion over the prosecution version. In view of the aforesaid, the possibility of false implication of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out.
FIR No. 172/2021 PS Nand Nagri titled as State v. Rajni 8/9
Digitally signed by
DEEPAKSHI DEEPAKSHI RANA
RANA Date: 2025.09.12
04:15:40 +0530
23. It is trite in criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be allowed to the accused.
24. Thus, in view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the benefit of doubt ought to be granted to the accused, who are entitled to be exonerated of the charges against the accused in the present case. The accused Rajni W/o Late Sanjay Nagiya is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act.
25. Case property be confiscated to the State and disposed off as per law if not Digitally signed already done. by DEEPAKSHI DEEPAKSHI RANA RANA Date:
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN 2025.09.12
COURT ON 12.09.2025 04:15:53 +0530
(Deepakshi Rana)
JMFC-03, District Shahdara,
Karkardooma Courts/Delhi
[This judgment has been directly typed on computer to dictation] [This judgment contains 09 signed pages] FIR No. 172/2021 PS Nand Nagri titled as State v. Rajni 9/9