Delhi District Court
State vs Rani on 4 September, 2025
STATE Vs. RANI
IN THE COURT OF MS. PARUL SHARMA
JMFC-13, DWARKA COURT (SOUTH WEST), NEW
DELHI
DLSW020176082022
STATE Vs. RANI
FIR No. 603/2020
P.S Chhawla
Case No. 5157/2022
Date of commission of offence 13.06.2020
Date of institution of the case 28.09.2022
Name of the complainant Ct. Rakesh
Name of accused and address Rani W/o Sh. Ramesh
R/o H. No. 25, Pankaj
Garden, Goyla Dairy,
Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved U/s 33 Delhi Excise
Act
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final order ACQUITTAL
Date when reserved for judgment 04.09.2025
Date of judgment 04.09.2025
Cr. No. 5157/2022 FIR No. 603/2020 Page no. 1/15
Digitally
signed by
PARUL
PARUL SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.09.04
16:07:08
+0530
STATE Vs. RANI
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS:
1. The present case pertains to prosecution of accused Rani (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'), pursuant to charge sheet filed qua her under Section 33 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to 'Act') subsequent to the investigation carried out in FIR No. 603/2020 PS Chhawala.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.06.2020, at about 09:15 PM, in front of Nehru Academy, Pankaj Garden, Goyla Dairy, the accused was found in possession of 145 quarter bottles of illicit liquor namely Asli Santra Masaledar Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only without having any permit or licence. The same were seized by the police officials as per seizure memo Ex. PW1/A, and thereafter, an FIR was registered qua the accused. After investigation, the police filed the present charge sheet against the accused for commission of offence punishable U/s 33 of the Act.
3. Upon appearance, complete set of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused.
Arguments were heard pursuant to which charge for offence punishable U/s 33 of the Act was framed qua the accused to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Further, the accused vide her statement recorded Cr. No. 5157/2022 FIR No. 603/2020 Page no. 2/15 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.09.04
16:07:15
+0530
STATE Vs. RANI
U/s 294 Cr.P.C admitted the genuineness of copy of FIR No. 603/2020 Ex.A1, certificate U/s 65B of IEA Ex.A2, DD entry 0094A dated 13.06.2020 Ex.A3. and Excise result Ex.A4.
EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
4. Four witnesses in total were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. Following oral and documentary evidences were led by the prosecution:-
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 HC Rakesh PW-2 W/Ct. Sarti PW-3 ASI Ashok Kumar PW-4 ASI Praveen DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Seizure memo of case Ex. PW1/A property and samples Site plan Ex. PW1/B Disclosure statement of Ex. PW1/C accused Notice under Section 41A Ex. PW2/A CrPC Form M-29 Ex. PW3/A Tehrir Ex. PW3/B Pabandinama Ex. PW3/C Case Property Ex. P1 Destruction Order bearing no. Mark P2 F.CONF.MISC./2022/4447-48 dt. 22.09.2020 Photograph of case property Ex. P3 Cr. No. 5157/2022 FIR No. 603/2020 Page no. 3/15 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.04 16:07:21 +0530 STATE Vs. RANI
5. PW-1 HC Rakesh deposed that on 13.06.2020, he was posted at PS Chhawla as constable. On that day, he was on patrolling duty on private vehicle at Pankaj Garden, Goyla Dairy and at about 09:15 PM when he reached near Nehru Academy, Pankaj Garden, Goyla Dairy he found one lady coming from main road having a white plastic katta. He apprehended the said lady and interrogated her and upon checking the said plastic katta he found illicit liquor in the same. The name of the accused was revealed as Rani. The information regarding recovery of illicit liquor and apprehension of accused was transmitted to PS Chhawla. He further deposed with regard to the investigation carried out by the IO.
6. During cross examination, PW-1 stated that he left the PS at 08:00 PM. He had not made any DD entry at the time of arrival and reached at the spot at about 09:00 PM on his private motorcycle. He further stated that no written notice was served to the public persons or the neighbours. Seizure memo was prepared prior to registration of FIR as FIR no. and other details were mentioned thereafter. He further stated that case property Ex.P1 was not having any specific mark and he was not present at the time of destruction of the Cr. No. 5157/2022 FIR No. 603/2020 Page no. 4/15 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.09.04
16:07:25
+0530
STATE Vs. RANI
property and could not tell about the articles kept in the plastic kattas shown in the photographs Ex.P3.
7. PW-2 W/Ct. Sarti reiterated the version of PW-1 in her examination-in-chief as well as cross examination. She further deposed that the accused was released after serving the notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. Ex.PW2/A.
8. PW- 3 ASI Ashok deposed that on 13.06.2020, he was posted at PS Chhawla as Head Constable. On that day, after receiving of DD no 94A he alongwith W/Ct. Sarti went to the spot at near Nehru Acadmy, Pankaj Garden, Goyla Dairy, where Ct. Rakesh and the accused Rani alongwith the case property met him. The accused alongwith the case property was handed over to him.
He further deposed that he requested 4-5 public persons to join the investigation but no one came forward and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. He checked the plastic katta and found 145 quarter bottles of illicit liquor make of Asli Santra Masaledar Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only. He took one quarter bottle as sample and kept the remaining in the same plastic katta. The case property and samples were sealed with the seal of AK. After using the seal the seal was handed over to Ct. Rakesh. Form M-29 was filed by him at the spot Ex. PW3/A. Cr. No. 5157/2022 FIR No. 603/2020 Page no. 5/15 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.04 16:07:30 +0530 STATE Vs. RANI The case property and samples were seized by him vide memo Ex. PW1/A. He prepared a tehrir which is Ex. PW3/B and the same was handed over to Ct. Rakesh. After registration of FIR, Ct. Rakesh returned back to the spot and the original tehrir and the copy of the FIR was handed over to him. He prepared the site plan already Ex. PWI/B. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded vide memo Ex PW1/C. The accused was released after serving the notice under Section 41A. He prepared the pabandinama Ex. PW3/C and recorded statement of witnesses. Thereafter, they returned in PS and case property and samples were deposited in malkhana PS, He sent the sample through Ct. Jitender to excise Lab for examination and get collected the result of the same. Thereafter, he got transferred and handed over the file to MHCR and the investigation was complete at his end.
9. During cross examination, PW-3 stated that he reached at the spot at about 09:45 PM. He had requested the public persons to join the investigation but no one came forward. He admitted that no written notice was served to the public persons or the neighbours. He further admitted that he had not prepared the seal handing over memo. He also admitted that he had not clicked any photographs of the accused with case property at the Cr. No. 5157/2022 FIR No. 603/2020 Page no. 6/15 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.09.04
16:07:34
+0530
STATE Vs. RANI
time of recovery. He further stated that he had asked the source of illicit liquor but that could not be verified. He further admitted that the seizure memo was prepared prior to registration of FIR as FIR no. and other details were mentioned thereafter. He also admitted that the case property Ex. P1 is not having any specific mark and he could not tell about the articles kept in the plastic katta shown in the photographs Ex.P3.
10. PW-4 ASI Praveen deposed that in the month of September/ October 2021, he was posted at PS Chhawla as HC and received the present case file for further investigation and found that the investigation had already been completed. He prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the Court.
11. On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C, PW at serial no. 4 and 5A as per list of prosecution witnesses were dropped and formal proof of the documents sought to be proved by them was dispensed with.
12. Thereafter PE was closed.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C:
13. Statement of the accused u/s 313 read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded separately in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to her. The accused denied all the allegations Cr. No. 5157/2022 FIR No. 603/2020 Page no. 7/15 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.09.04
16:07:38
+0530
STATE Vs. RANI
levelled against her and stated that she has been falsely implicated in the case. Accused further opted not to lead any evidence in her defence, hence DE was closed. FINAL ARGUMENTS:
14. Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their testimony has remained unrebutted. It has been further argued that on the combined reading of the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses, offence u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
15. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused and that the accused has been falsely implicated by the police officials. It has been further argued that and the recovery of illicit liquor has been planted upon her. Ld. Counsel has inter-alia submitted that since no public witnesses were joined by the police officials during investigation and no recovery photographs were also taken on record by the investigating officer, hence the recovery of alleged illicit liquor is highly doubtful.
Further, due to lacunae and incoherency in the story of the prosecution, accused be given the benefit of doubt and is therefore entitled for an acquittal.
16. Submissions have been heard and considered. Records of the case have been duly perused.
Cr. No. 5157/2022 FIR No. 603/2020 Page no. 8/15
Digitally
signed by
PARUL
PARUL SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.09.04
16:07:42
+0530
STATE Vs. RANI
APPLICABILITY OF LAW, APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS:
17. Accused is indicted herein for the offence under Section 33 of the Act. The said provision is reproduced as follows:
"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 Cr. No. 5157/2022 FIR No. 603/2020 Page no. 9/15 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.09.04
16:07:46
+0530
STATE Vs. RANI
purpose of packing any liquor;
sells any intoxicant, collects, possesses or buys any intoxicant beyond the prescribed quantity, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which 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."
Section 52 of Act lays down a rebuttable presumption which is reproduced 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."
18. Burden of proof u/s 101 Indian Evidence Act always lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Also, it is well settled that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles her to acquittal. Going by the said principle, case of the Cr. No. 5157/2022 FIR No. 603/2020 Page no. 10/15 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.09.04
16:07:50
+0530
STATE Vs. RANI
prosecution is suffering from multiple inconsistencies and incoherencies thereby rendering its version highly incredible. The said discrepancies are discussed hereinafter one by one.
A) Doubtful recovery of illicit liquor
19. The magna carta for raising presumption u/s 52 of the Act is the recovery of alleged articles from the possession of the accused. It has been admitted by all the prosecution witnesses in a single breath that alleged recovery of illicit liquor from the accused was effected from a residential area. Further, no public person joined as a witness to the said recovery and no notice was given for the said refusal/non-compliance. Despite fully aware about the provision contained under Section 100 Cr.P.C, no sincere attempts were made by the IO to join public witnesses in the present case. The alleged recovery was neither photographed nor video graphed. Failure of the IO to take any such steps creates a reasonable doubt over the alleged recovery from the possession of the accused. (Reliance placed on the case of "Anoop Joshi vs. State", 1999 (2) C.C Cases 314 (HC) and "Sadhu Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1997) 3 Crimes 55 (PH)) Cr. No. 5157/2022 FIR No. 603/2020 Page no. 11/15 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.09.04 16:07:57 +0530 STATE Vs. RANI B). Doubtful Seizure Memo and Form M-29.
20. Appearance of FIR number on the seizure memo, Form M-29 i.e. documents which were purportedly prepared prior to the registration of subject FIR, also raises serious doubts over the genuineness and veracity of FIR itself. No explanation has been rendered by the prosecution on the said aspect. It is not even the case that the same, on the face of it, appears to have been written in separate ink or at some left-over space. Rather, it appears to have been recorded in same continuity, handwriting and ink as rest of the contents of it. This leads to the irresistible conclusion that either the FIR was registered prior to the alleged recovery of the illicit liquor, or that the said documents were prepared later in point of time. In either of the scenarios, a hole is punched in the version of the prosecution. (Reliance placed on the case of Lalit v. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri. L.J. 127 and Mohd. Hashim vs State, 82 (1999) DLT 375) C) Possibility of tampering with the seal
21. After sealing the case property and the samples of illicit liquor with seal of 'AK', the aforesaid seal was handed over to HC Rakesh. However, HC Rakesh was a recovery witness and had apprehended the accused. He Cr. No. 5157/2022 FIR No. 603/2020 Page no. 12/15 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.04 16:08:01 +0530 STATE Vs. RANI was also subsequently a part of the investigation in the present case. Thus, the seal was not handed over to any independent witness and it remained in the possession of police officials of the same PS .Therefore seal was well within the reach of the IO. Hence, the possibility of tampering with the seal cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, alleged recovered bottles of liquor were not bearing any specific marks to show that the said case property was recovered from the possession of the accused. Since the seal remained in the possession of police officials, hence the particulars of the case property mentioned on the katta could have been written anytime and thus there is every possibility of tampering and manipulation. (Reliance placed on the case of Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2007 (3) RCR (CRIMINAL) 452 and Safiullah v. State, (1993) 49 DLT 193) D) Other unexplained Discrepancies
22. Illicit liquor samples were seized on 13.06.2020 however the said samples were sent for examination only on 19.06.2020. During the said intervening period, the said samples were kept in the police station itself and the seal of the case property also remained in the possession of police officials. Tampering with the samples during the Cr. No. 5157/2022 FIR No. 603/2020 Page no. 13/15 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.04 16:08:05 +0530 STATE Vs. RANI said intervening period cannot be ruled out. Further, delay in sending over the samples for chemical examination is also unexplained.(Reliance placed on Dattu Ram vs. State (Delhi): 1996(1) Crimes 604, Dhanpat vs. State of Punjab: 2000 (1) CC Cases HC 52 and Chandra Wati vs. State (Delhi) :1991 (44) DLT 31)
23. Excise result was obtained only qua the samples seized wherein the presence of alcohol/country made liquor is confirmed. The presence of alcohol in the remaining allegedly recovered bottles has not been proved by the prosecution. It is further not the case of prosecution that contents of all the bottles were mixed and a representative sample was drawn therefrom which was sent for chemical examination. Presence of alcohol has been found in only three sample bottles allegedly recovered from the accused. Thus, offence u/s 33 of the Act cannot be said to be made out since it falls within the permissible limit specified under Rule 20 of the Delhi Excise Rules, 2010. (Reliance placed on Nagesh S/O Ningaiah vs. The State of Karnataka, Criminal Revision Petition No. 772/2009 decided on 31.01.2014)
24. Lack of efforts by the IO to trace out the source of alleged illicit liquor seized also raises serious doubts over the story of the prosecution. Hence, the investigation itself is hasty, unreliable and shoddy.
Cr. No. 5157/2022 FIR No. 603/2020 Page no. 14/15 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.09.04
16:08:10
+0530
STATE Vs. RANI
CONCLUSION
25. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove any cogent and reliable piece of evidence to bring home guilt of the accused for offence u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act. Further due to several lacunas in the prosecution story, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, thus entitling her for acquittal in the present case.
26. Accordingly, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused for the offence u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act and holds the accused not guilty of commission of the said offence. Accused Rani is thus, acquitted of the offence u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act.
27. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the accused. Digitally signed by Announced in the open court on 04.09.2025 PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.04 16:08:15 +0530 (Parul Sharma) JMFC-13 South West District Dwarka Courts, New Delhi 04.09.2025 It is certified that this judgment contains 14 pages, all signed by the undersigned.
Cr. No. 5157/2022 FIR No. 603/2020 Page no. 15/15