Delhi District Court
State vs Ayush on 13 March, 2026
Page 1 of 18
IN THE COURT OF ASHISH KUMAR MEENA
JMFC-01, SAKET COURT (SOUTH) NEW DELHI.
FIR NO.: 156/2023
U/S: 33/52(2)/58 DELHI EXCISE ACT
PS: FATEHPUR BERI
STATE
VS.
(1). AYUSH, S/O SH. GUDDU SINGH,
R/o H. No.108A/9, 1st Floor, Saroha Bhawan, Kishan Garh,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
(2). PRABHA KUMARI, W/O SH. GUDDU SINGH,
R/o H. No.108A/9, 1st Floor, Saroha Bhawan, Kishan Garh,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
..... ACCUSED PERSONS
1. Sr. No. of the case : 2171/2024
2. The date of offence : 12.04.2023
3. The name of the complainant : HC Krishan Pal
4. The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
5. The date of order : 13.03.2026
6. The final order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, Ayush ("Accused no.1") is facing trial for the allegations that on 12.04.2023, at about 02:45 p.m., at Aya Nagar Border Picket, M. G. Road, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS-Fatehpur Beri, was found carrying illit liquor Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 156/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ayush & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.03.13 16:23:24 +0530 Page 2 of 18 in vehicle bearing registration no. DL-3SEF-3358 ("Offending vehicle"), without any licence or permit or pass, thereby accused no.1 has committed an offence punishable u/s 33/52/58 Delhi Excise Act.
2. It is also an allegation that Prabha Kumari ("Accused no.2"), being owner of the offending vehicle, allowed co-accused Ayush to carry illicit liquor in her vehicle. Thereby, accused no.2 Prabha Kumari has committed an offence punishable u/s 33/52 Delhi Excise Act.
3. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO. Consequently, accused persons were summoned after taking cognizance of offence. The accused persons were charged u/s 33/52(2)/58 of the Delhi Excise Act and accordingly, the charges were framed against the accused persons to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined total six witnesses. PW-1 Krishan Pal has deposed that on 12.04.2023, he alongwith Ct. Radhey Shyam and DHG Karamvir, was on picket duty at Aaya Nagar Border. At about 2:30 PM, a secret informer met him and informed him that a person carrying illicit liquor on a scooty was coming from the side of Gurugram, Haryana. He requested 3-4 passers-by to join the investigation after informing them about the secret information, but none agreed due to their personal difficulties. Due to paucity of time, no notice could be served upon them. At about 2:45 PM, a person was seen coming on a red-coloured scooty carrying two black-coloured bags. At the instance of the Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 156/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ayush & Anr.
Date:
MEENA 2026.03.13
16:23:30
+0530
Page 3 of 18
secret informer, he along with his staff tried to stop the said person and, after some effort, managed to apprehend him. Upon checking the two bags, bottles of illicit liquor were found inside. He informed the Duty Officer of PS Fatehpur Beri about the incident. Thereafter, HC Yashvir and HC Sandeep reached the spot. He handed over the case property as well as the accused to HC Yashvir. HC Yashvir checked both the bags and found 24 bottles of illicit liquor labeled "Royal Stag Premier Whiskey - For Sale in Haryana Only - 750 ml" in one bag. One bottle was taken out as a sample, and the remaining bottles were kept in the same bag, which was then placed in a plastic katta and sealed with the seal of "YS". Upon checking the second bag, HC Yashvir found 12 bottles of illicit liquor labeled "Master Blenders Signature Premier Grand Whiskey - For Sale in Haryana Only - 750 ml." One bottle was taken out as a sample, and the remaining bottles were kept in the same bag. The mouth of the bag was tied, placed in a plastic katta, and sealed with the seal of "YS". Both sample bottles were also sealed with the seal of "YS". After use, the seal was handed over to HC Sandeep. The sample bottles were marked as S-1 and S-2, and the plastic kattas were marked as R-1 and R-2. HC Yashvir seized the illicit liquor alongwith the sample bottles vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. The scooty was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. HC Yashvir prepared Form M-29 at the spot. Upon inquiry, the apprehended person disclosed his name as Ayush, S/o Guddu Singh, R/o Kishangarh. HC Yashvir recorded his statement vide Ex.PW1/C. HC Yashvir prepared the rukka and handed it over to HC Sandeep for registration of the FIR. HC Sandeep went to the police station and got the FIR registered. Further investigation of the case was marked to HC Satish, who reached the spot and prepared the site Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 156/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ayush & Anr. KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.03.13
16:23:36
+0530
Page 4 of 18
plan vide Ex.PW1/D. The Investigating Officer (IO) served notice under Section 41A CrPC to the accused, interrogated him, and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW1/E. The accused was bound down vide bound down memo. The IO also recorded his statement under Section 161 CrPC. It is to be noted that PW-3 Ct. Radhey Shyam has deposed on the same lines as PW-1 Krishan Pal. Both the witnesses were duly cross-examined by the accused persons.
5. PW-4 ASI Yashbir (1st IO of this case) has deposed that on 12.04.2023, he alongwith HC Sandeep was on beat patrolling duty. Meanwhile, he received DD No. 53A, and thereafter he alongwith HC Sandeep went to the spot i.e., Aaya Nagar Border, MG Road Picket. There, they met HC Krishanpal, Ct. Radhey Shyam and DHG Karamvir. ASI Krishan handed over one person to him. Upon enquiry, the said person disclosed his name as Ayush S/o Guddu Singh, R/o Kishan Garh, Vasant Kunj. Apart from this, HC Krishan handed over custody of one red coloured Activa bearing registration No. DL3SEF3358 along with two bags. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of HC Krishanpal vide Ex.PW1/C. Thereafter, he checked both the bags and upon checking the first bag, he found 24 bottles of illicit liquor labeled "Royal Stag Premier Whiskey - For Sale in Haryana Only - 750 ml." He took out one bottle as a sample and kept the remaining bottles in the same bag. The bag was placed in a plastic katta and sealed with the seal of "YS". He then checked the second bag and found 12 bottles of illicit liquor labeled "Master Blenders Signature Premier Grand Whiskey - For Sale in Haryana Only - 750 ml." He took out one bottle as a sample from the said bottles and kept the remaining bottles in the same bag. The mouth of the Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.03.13
FIR No: 156/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ayush & Anr. 16:23:39
+0530
Page 5 of 18
bag was tied, placed in a plastic katta and sealed with the seal of "YS." He also sealed both the sample bottles with the seal of "YS." After use, the seal was handed over to HC Sandeep. The sample bottles were marked as S-1 and S-2, and the plastic kattas were marked as R-1 and R-2. He seized the illicit liquor bottles along with the sample bottles vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. He also seized the said scooty vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. He prepared Form M-29 at the spot vide Mark-Z. He prepared the rukka and handed it over to HC Sandeep for registration of FIR. HC Sandeep went to the PS and got the FIR registered. Further investigation of the case was marked to HC Satish. Thereafter, HC Sandeep alongwith HC Satish came to the spot. He handed over the case property and the accused to HC Satish. HC Satish prepared the site plan at the instance of HC Krishanpal. Thereafter, he was relieved from the investigation due to other official work, and the further investigation of the case was conducted by HC Satish. It is to be noted that PW-2 HC Sandeep has deposed on the same lines as PW-4 ASI Yashbir. Both the witnesses were duly cross-examined by the accused persons.
6. PW-5 HC Satish Kumar (2nd IO of this case) has deposed that on 12.04.2023, he was present at the PS when further investigation of the case was marked to him. HC Sandeep handed over the original tehrir and copy of the FIR to him at the PS. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Sandeep went to the spot. At the spot, he met HC Krishan Pal, Ct. Radhe Shyam and DHC Home Guard Karamvir. He prepared the site plan at the instance of HC Krishan Pal vide Ex.PW1/D. HC Yashvir handed over custody of the accused along with the offending scooty to him. He made inquiry from the accused, who disclosed his name as Ayush S/o Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
2026.03.13 FIR No: 156/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ayush & Anr. 16:23:42 +0530 Page 6 of 18 Sh. Guddu Singh, R/o Kishangarh, Vasant Kunj. He recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ayush vide Ex.PW1/E. He served notice under Section 41A CrPC to accused Ayush vide Ex.PW5/A and bound him down vide bound down memo Ex.PW5/B. Thereafter, he brought the case property to the PS alongwith his staff and deposited the same in the malkhana. He recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC. He got the sample bottle deposited at the Excise Laboratory, Vikas Bhawan, for obtaining the result. After receiving the sample result, he placed the same on record. He obtained the ownership details of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL3SEF3358 and came to know that one lady, namely Prabha Kumari, mother of accused Ayush, was the registered owner of the said vehicle. He served notice to Prabha Kumari to join the investigation. Prabha Kumari joined the investigation, and he interrogated her vide Ex.PW5/C. He served notice under Section 41A CrPC to Prabha Kumari vide Ex.PW5/D and bound her down vide bound down memo Ex.PW5/E. He recorded the statements of witnesses, completed the investigation, prepared the charge-sheet, and filed the same before the concerned court. The witness was duly cross-examined by the accused persons.
7. PW-6 DHG Karambir Singh has deposed that on 12.04.2023, he was posted as Delhi Home Guard at PS Fatehpur Beri. On that day, he alongwith Ct. Radhey Shyam and HC Krishan Pal was on picket duty at Aaya Nagar Border. At about 2:30 PM, a secret informer met HC Krishan Pal and informed him that a person carrying illicit liquor on a scooty was coming from the side of Gurugram, Haryana. HC Krishan Pal requested 3-4 passers-by to join the investigation after disclosing the Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 156/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ayush & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.03.13 16:23:45 +0530 Page 7 of 18 information, but none agreed due to their personal difficulties. Due to paucity of time, no notice could be served upon them. At about 2:45 PM, a person was seen coming on a red-coloured scooty carrying two black-coloured bags. At the instance of the secret informer, he alongwith his staff tried to stop the said person and, after some effort, managed to apprehend him. Upon checking the two bags, bottles of illicit liquor were found inside. Thereafter, HC Krishan Pal informed the Duty Officer of PS- Fatehpur Beri regarding the incident. Subsequently, HC Yashvir and HC Sandeep reached the spot. HC Krishan Pal handed over the case property as well as the accused to HC Yashvir. HC Yashvir checked both the bags and found 24 bottles of illicit liquor labeled "Royal Stag Premier Whiskey - For Sale in Haryana Only - 750 ml" in one bag. He took out one bottle as a sample and kept the remaining bottles in the same bag, which was placed in a plastic katta and sealed with the seal of "YS". Upon checking the second bag, HC Yashvir found 12 bottles of illicit liquor labeled "Master Blenders Signature Premier Grand Whiskey - For Sale in Haryana Only - 750 ml." He took out one bottle as a sample and kept the remaining bottles in the same bag. The mouth of the bag was tied, placed in a plastic katta and sealed with the seal of "YS". Both sample bottles were also sealed with the seal of "YS". After use, the seal was handed over to HC Sandeep. The sample bottles were marked as S-1 and S-2, and the plastic kattas were marked as R-1 and R-2. HC Yashvir seized the illicit liquor bottles along with the sample bottles vide seizure memo. He also seized the said scooty vide seizure memo. HC Yashvir prepared Form M-29 at the spot. Upon inquiry, the apprehended person disclosed his name as Ayush S/o Guddu Singh, R/o Kishangarh. HC Yashvir prepared the rukka and Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 156/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ayush & Anr. KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.03.13
16:23:48
+0530
Page 8 of 18
handed it over to HC Sandeep for registration of the FIR. HC Sandeep went to the PS and got the FIR registered. Further investigation of the case was marked to HC Satish. HC Satish reached the spot and prepared the site plan. The IO served notice under Section 41A CrPC to the accused, interrogated him, and recorded his disclosure statement. The accused was bound down vide bound down memo. The IO also recorded his statement under Section 161 CrPC. The witness was duly cross-examined by the accused persons.
8. It is pertinent to mention that the accused persons have also admitted the genuineness of FIR, Certificate u/s 65B IEA, Chemical Examination Report and Road Certificate pertaining to offending vehicle without admitting the content of the same.
Prosecution evidence was thereafter closed.
9. On completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons were recorded u/s 281 Cr.P.C r/w 313 Cr.P.C, wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons, to which they stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case and all the exhibits are false and manipulated. Further, the accused persons did not wish to lead defence evidence.
10. Short point for determination before this court is as under:-
"Whether on 12.04.2023, at about 02:45 p.m., at Aya Nagar Border Picket, M. G. Road, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS-Fatehpur Beri, was found carrying illit liquor in vehicle bearing Digitally registration no. DL-3SEF-3358 ("Offending signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.03.13
16:23:51
FIR No: 156/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ayush & Anr. +0530
Page 9 of 18
vehicle"), without any licence or permit or pass, thereby accused no.1 has committed an offence punishable u/s 33/52 Delhi Excise Act"
"Whether Prabha Kumari ("Accused no.2"), being owner of the offending vehicle, allowed co-accused Ayush to carry illicit liquor in her vehicle. Thereby accused no.2 has committed an offence punishable u/s 33/52"
11. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that the ocular and the documentary evidence on record has proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. APP for the state submitted that there is sufficient material available on record to convict the accused persons and hence prayed for conviction of accused persons as per the evidence produced by the prosecution witnesses.
12. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused no.1 that no recovery was effected from possession of accused. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused no.2 that the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery. The Ld. Counsel for accused persons submitted that the accused persons are innocent and falsely implicated in the present matter. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has pointed out the material contradiction made during the examination of prosecution witnesses. Furthermore, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons submitted that be accused persons are liable to the acquitted in the present case.
13. Final arguments heard. Case file perused.
14. In the present case accused persons are charged under Section 33/52 of Delhi Excise Act. Before appreciating the Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 156/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ayush & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.03.13 16:23:55 +0530 Page 10 of 18 evidence in hand, it is important to go through the relevant provision of the Act:-
Section 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--
(a) manufactures, imports, exports, transports or removes any intoxicant;
(b) constructs or works any manufactory or warehouse;
(c) bottles any liquor for purposes of sale;
(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;
(e) possesses any material or film either with or without the Government logo or logo of any State or wrapper or any other thing in which liquor can be packed or any apparatus or implement or machine for the purpose of packing any liquor;
(f) sells any intoxicant, collects, possesses or buys any intoxicant beyond the prescribed quantity, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 156/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ayush & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.03.13 16:23:59 +0530 Page 11 of 18 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.
15. It is also significant to note that Section 52 of Delhi Excise Act presumes that accused persons have committed the offence (u/s 33 of the act) for the possession of which accused persons are unable to account satisfactorily. However, this presumption can be rebutted if proved contrary. It is further to be noted that initial still lies with the prosecution to show that accused persons were found with illicit liquor without any licence. Section 52 of the Act lays down 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.
(2) XXXXXXX
16. In order to receive the benefit of Section 52 of the Act, the prosecution is duty bound to prove that the accused persons were found in the possession of illicit liquor. As per version of the prosecution, the same is proved by the recovery memo and testimony of the witnesses. However, the manner of conducting inquiry, seizure and search etc. on the spot at the time of detaining the accused persons were and alleged recovery of liquor in this case, makes the prosecution version highly doubtful Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 156/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ayush & Anr. KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2026.03.13 16:24:02 +0530 Page 12 of 18 as there are various material contradictions can be seen in statement of prosecution witnesses.
17. It is the case of prosecution that the complainant/HC Krishan Kumar alongwith Ct. Radhey Shyam and DHG Karamvir apprehended the accused alongwith illicit liquor and offending vehicle. Thereafter, upon information HC Yashbir and HC Sandeep reached at the spot. HC Yashbir took out sample bottles from bag and sealed the remaining case property with the seal of "YS". Thereafter, he seized the case property vide Ex.PW1/A and offending vehicle vide Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, he got present FIR registered through Ct. Sandeep. Thereafter, the matter was deputed to IO/HC Satish. As discussed above, IO/HC Satish has not seen the case property as the same were already sealed and seized by the complainant. This Court fails to understand as to why the complainant/HC Yashbir was in such hurry to seize and seal the case property prior to registration of FIR. It is an admitted position that the IO has only prepared site and conducted the investigation qua the owner of offending vehicle after registration of FIR. Thus, the chances of preparation of seizure memo at later stage cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, seizure memo Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B mentions the FIR number of the present case at the top of the said memo. No explanation has been put forward by the complainant or prosecution. The said lapse in investigation proves to be fatal to the case of prosecution.
18. Interestingly, all the witnesses have stated that no photographs of the case properties were taken at the time of recovery of property by them. It is to be noted that the prosecution has placed Ex.P5 (colly) (photograph of alleged Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 156/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ayush & Anr. KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
2026.03.13 16:24:06 +0530 Page 13 of 18 illicit liquor and offending vehicle) were tendered in evidence before this Court. It is to be noted that Ex.P5 (colly) alleges that the illicit liquor was again sealed in the katta recovered from the possession of the accused. However, the prosecution has failed to show who is the author of said photographs, as all the witnesses have deposed that they have not taken any photographs of the case property. Further, the prosecution has failed to explain as to why the collective photographs of the case property was not taken prior to sealing of the case property. It is further to be noted that the prosecution has placed photograph of the offending vehicle, however, bare perusal of the photograph itself reflects that it was taken at the later state of investigation. In view of this court, the said lapse and contradiction in investigation proves to be fatal to the case of prosecution.
19. Further, it is deposed by all the witnesses that that they tried to join independent witnesses in the investigation but none of the joined citing personal reasons. As per site plan, the place of incident appears to be busy area and the said incident is stated to have taken place at around 02:45 PM. Further, it is evident from the testimony of the witnesses that accused persons were apprehended alongwith the alleged illicit liquor at public place, but still no public independent person was cited as a witness in this case. Though witnesses have stated in his testimony that some public persons were requested to join, but none of them agreed and it is not clear whether took any effort to give notice to passerby to join them as witnesses but witness did not disclose the names of any such witnesses. IO has also failed to show any effort to include public witnesses in order to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and inspire the confidence of this court.
Digitally
signed by
ASHISH
ASHISH KUMAR
KUMAR MEENA
FIR No: 156/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ayush & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.03.13
16:24:09
+0530
Page 14 of 18
20. Regarding the importance of joining independent witness during investigation in a case like the present one, reliance may be placed on Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1999(2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), wherein, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
21. Similarly, in Nanak Chand Vs. State of Delhi reported as DHC 1992 CRI LJ 55 it is observed as under:-
"That the recovery is proved by three police officials who have differed on who snatched the Kirpan from the petitioner and at what time. The recovery was from a street with houses on both sides and shops nearby. And, yet no witness from the public has been produced. Not that in every case the police Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
FIR No: 156/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ayush & Anr. 2026.03.13 16:24:12 +0530 Page 15 of 18 officials are to be treated as unworthy of reliance but their failure to join witnesses from the public especially when they are available at their elbow, may, as in the present case, cast doubt. They have again churned out a stereotyped version. Its rejection needs no Napoleon on the Bridge at Arcola".
22. Also, in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1872, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"It therefore emerges that non-compliance of these provisions i.e. Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. would amount to an irregularity and the effect of the same on the main case depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course, in such a situation, the court has to consider whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused and also examine the evidence in respect of search in the light of the fact that these provisions have not been complied with and further consider whether the weight of evidence is in any manner affected because of the non-compliance. It is well-settled that the testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be an official but as a rule of caution and depending upon the circumstances of the case, the courts look for independent corroboration. This again depends on question whether the official has deliberately failed to comply with these provisions or failure was due to lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with these Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
2026.03.13 FIR No: 156/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ayush & Anr. 16:24:15 +0530 Page 16 of 18 provisions." [Emphasis supplied]
23. Considering the aforesaid observations made by the Higher Courts, the omissions / failure on the part of investigating agency to join independent public witnesses create reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and substantiates the defence version that there is false implication of the accused in the present case and that the recovery has been falsely planted upon the accused. Further, considering facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of ratio in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC, there was no lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the above- mentioned facts create serious doubt on the case of the prosecution.
24. Further, as per evidence on record, the seal after use was not given to any independent public person. Hence, considering the legal position, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused, as tampering with case property in such a scenario cannot be ruled out. The reliance is placed on the judgment of Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2007 (3) R.C.C. (Criminal) 452, wherein it is held that-
"7. The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property. It is well settled that till the case property is not dispatched to the forensic science laboratory, the seal should not be available to the prosecuting agency and in the absence of such a safeguard the possibility of seal, contraband and the samples being tampered with cannot be ruled out."
Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 156/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ayush & Anr. KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.03.13
16:24:18
+0530
Page 17 of 18
25. Similarly, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Safiullah v. State, 1993 (1) RCR (Criminal) 622, held that -
"10. The seals after use were kept by the police officials themselves. Therefore, the possibility of tampering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out. It was very essential for the prosecution to have established from stage to stage the fact that the sample was not tampered with. Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused."
26. Further, Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 , provides that 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 shall be entered vide a separate entry and this entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personality by signature or seal. In the present case, all these departures or the arrival entries have not been proved on the record by the prosecution. In absence of such proof, the presence of the police officials at the spot cannot be believed. Reference can be made to on Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29.
27. Furthermore, it is to be noted that accused no.2 Prabha Kumari has also been made accused in the present matter u/s 33/52(2) Delhi Excise Act. In this regard, it is admitted position that accused no.2 is the owner of offending vehicle, however, the prosecution has failed to prove the authenticity of seizure memo Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 156/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ayush & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.03.13 16:24:22 +0530 Page 18 of 18 of illicit liquor and offending vehicle. Since, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations qua accused no.1 namely Ayush, therefore, accused no.2 namely Prabha Kumari cannot be held liable u/s 33/52(2) Delhi Excise Act.
28. From the aforesaid discussion, it is very clear that the manner in which the inquiry, seizure and search etc. has been conducted on the spot at the time of alleged recovery of liquor, it makes the prosecution version highly doubtful. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
29. Hence, accused persons namely (1). Ayush, S/o Sh. Guddu Singh and (2). Prabha Kumari, W/o Sh. Guddu Singh Bhati stands acquitted for the offence punishable under section 33/52(2)/58 of Delhi Excise Act, they have been charged with. Ordered accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.03.2026. IT IS CERTIFIED THAT THE PRESENT JUDGMENT RUNS INTO EIGHTEEN PAGES AND EACH PAGE BEARS SIGNATURE OF THE UNDERSIGNED. ASHISH Digitally by ASHISH signed KUMAR Date: 2026.03.13 KUMAR MEENA MEENA 16:24:27 +0530 (ASHISH KUMAR MEENA) JMFC-01/SAKET COURT(SOUTH) NEW DELHI/13.03.2026 FIR No: 156/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ayush & Anr.