Delhi District Court
State vs Kailash Mandal on 23 January, 2024
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. AISHWARYA SHARMA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE01, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. : Kailash Mandal
FIR No : 11 /2020
U/s : 33 Delhi Excise Act
P.S. : PALAM VILLAGE
1. Criminal Case No. : 5853/ 2020
2. Date of commission of offence : 07.01.2020
3. Date of institution of the case : 21.09.2020
4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name of accused & parentage : Kailash Mandal
S/o Sh. Lakhan Mandal
6. Offence complained or proved : Section 33 Delhi Excise Act
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 18.12.2023
9. Final order : Acquitted
10. Date of final order : 23.01.2024
Present : Sh. Sudhanshu Saini Ld. APP for state.
Accused in person with Ld. Counsel Sh. Dinesh Kumar.
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Kailash Mandal is facing trial for offence U/S 33 Delhi Excise Act. The allegations against the accused are that on 07.01.2020 at about 8:40 AM, on the road from Primary Health Centre from Mangla Puri, Palam Village within jurisdiction of PS Palam village, the accused Kailash Mandal was found in possession of 2,000 quarter bottles having label 'Santra Desi FIR No.11 /2020 St. Vs. Kailash Mandal 2 Sharab for sale in Haryana only, Frost Falcon Distilleries Ltd.' without any permit or license. The criminal law was set into motion by registration of FIR against the accused and investigation into the case began. After completion of the investigation, the present chargesheet was filed for conducting trial of the accused persons for the alleged offences.
2. After taking cognizance of the offences, the copies of chargesheet were supplied to accused Kailash Mandal in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. The arguments on charges were heard and charge for offence U/S33 Delhi Excise Act was framed against accused Kailash Mandal on 09.06.2022. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was led.
3. In order to prove allegations against accused, prosecution has examined five prosecution witnesses.
4. The proceedings U/S 294 Cr.P.C. were conducted wherein accused admitted the factum of registration of FIR no. 11/2020 as Ex. P1 and Chemical Examiner Report as Ex. P2, pursuant to the admission made by accused of these documents, witnesses at Sr. No. 1 & 2 were dropped from the list of witnesses.
5. 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/S33 of Delhi Excise Act has been proved beyond doubt.
6. 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 FIR No.11 /2020 St. Vs. Kailash Mandal 3 implicated by the police officials and the recovery of illicit liquor has been planted upon him. Arguing further, Ld. counsel has interalia submitted that no public witnesses were joined by the police officials during investigation. It is further argued that due to the lacunae and incoherency in the story of the prosecution, accused be given the benefit of doubt and is therefore, entitled to be acquitted.
7. Prior to delving into the contentions raised by the prosecution and defence, let us discuss the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses in brief.
8. PW3 ASI Raj Kumar is the complainant in the present case and he deposed that on 07.01.2020, one secret informer met him and gave information that one person is coming in Champion Tempo of green colour and is carrying illicit liquor and the said person would be coming from the side of Mahipalpur and will be going towards Palam. On this information, this witness prepared raiding party and asked some public persons to join the same but no one agreed and then they held nakabandi near Primary Health Centre, Palam after hiding themselves and at about 8:30 a.m, one green colour champion came there and after seeing the same, secret informer pointed towards the same and confirmed that it is the same vehicle which is carrying illicit liquor. The said Champion was stopped and the person who was riding the said Champion tried to flee away but he was caught and revealed his name as Kailash Mandal. Thereafter, this witness checked the said Champion and found liquor in it and then, took the said Champion tempo and accused to AATS Office where they counted the quantity of illicit liquor and upon checking the said champion Tempo, it was FIR No.11 /2020 St. Vs. Kailash Mandal 4 found containing 40 cartons of illicit liquor which were closed with a tape wrapped upon it. Upon opening the said cartons, they were found containing 50 quarter bottles of Santra Desi Masaledar for Sale in Haryana only, 180 ml each in each carton. Thereafter, 4 cartons were kept in one white katta and in total 10 white kattas were prepared containing 4 cartons in each katta. Thereafter, One quarter bottle were taken out as sample bottles from each white katta and it's mouth was tied with white cloth and thereafter, it was sealed with the seal of RK and it was given marked as SA l to SA 10. Remaining case property was kept in respective white kattas and mouth of the white kattas were also sealed with the seal of RK and they were given Serial No. S1 to S10. Thereafter, the Seal was handed over to Ct. Ravi Datt after use. This witness further deposed that he seized the case property vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A bearing his signatures at point A and also seized the offending vehicle vide memo Ex. PW3/B bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, this witness also prepared the seal handing over memo EX. PW3/C bearing his signatures at point A and also filled form M 29 and prepared rukka Ex. PW3/D bearing his signatures at point A and handed over the same to Ct. Ravi Dutt for registration of FIR. He then, went to the Police station and after getting the FIR registered, returned to the spot along with HC Hari Om. Thereafter, the HC Hari Om prepared the site plan at instance of this witness which is Ex. PW3/E bearing signatures of this witness at point A. Thereafter, further investigation of the present case was handed over to HC Hari OM. This witness further deposed that IO recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. This witness also correctly identified the accused and the identity of the case property was not disputed by Ld. Defence Counsel.
FIR No.11 /20209. PW4 HC Ravi Dutt deposed that on 07.01.2020, he was also part of the raiding party (constituting HC Raj Kumar, SI Mahesh, Ct. Akash and Ct. Narender), which upon receiving of information from secret informer, proceeded to the spot i.e. Primary Health Centre, Palam. Thus, this witness also deposed on the same lines as that of PW 3 ASI Raj Kumar and thus, his testimony is not being reproduced to avoid repetition. This witness correctly identified the accused and the identity of the case property is not disputed by Ld. Defence counsel.
10. PW5 HC Hari Om is the Investigating Officer in the present case FIR. He deposed that on 07.01.2020, further investigation of the present case FIR was marked to him and he collected the documents of the present case from HC Raj Kumar. He further stated thereafter, he prepared site plan Ex. PW3/E bearing his signatures at point A, arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/A bearing his signatures at point B, prepared personal search memo of accused Ex. PW4/B bearing his signatures at point B, recorded disclosure statement of the accused Ex. PW4/C bearing his signatures at point B and also recorded statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. This witness further deposed that he also sent the case property to Excise Lab, ITO. This witness correctly identified the accused.
11. PW1 HC Satpal deposed that on 16.01.2020, he sent the case property for chemical examination to Excise Department through PW2 Ct. Akash in sealed condition. Thereafter, PW2 Ct. Akash went to Excise Department and deposited the case property there and came back and handed over the receiving of the same to this witness vide RC No. 1/21/19 Ex. PW1/A bearing his FIR No.11 /2020 St. Vs. Kailash Mandal 6 signatures at point A.
12. PW2 HC Akash deposed that on 16.01.2020, he received the case property for chemical examination and he took the same to Excise Department in sealed condition. Thereafter, this witness went to Excise Department and deposited the case property there and then, came back to Police station and handed over the receiving of the same to MHCM vide RC No. 1/21/19 Ex. PW 1/A. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S313 Cr.P.C.:
13. Statement of the accused under Section 281/313 Cr.P.C. was recorded separately on 22.11.2023 in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to him. The accused controverted and denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Accused further opted to not lead evidence in his defence. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:
14. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both the parties. In the present case, the Accused Kailash Mandal has been indicted for the offence U/S 33 of Delhi Excise Act.
15. In order to prove the offence under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, the prosecution must establish the fulfilment of all the essential ingredients of the offence. The contents of Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act are reproduced as follows:
"33. Penalty for unlawful import, export, transport, manufacture, possession, sale, etc. FIR No.11 /2020 St. Vs. Kailash Mandal 7
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 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 lakh rupees."
16. It is also significant to note that Section 52 of Delhi Excise Act lays down a rebuttable presumption which goes 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......."
17. It is trite law that the burden always lies upon the prosecution to prove it's case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence and that the law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of moral FIR No.11 /2020 St. Vs. Kailash Mandal 8 conviction or on account of suspicion alone. Also, it is well settled that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles him to acquittal. The words "for the possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily" used in Section 52(1) of the Delhi Excise Act clearly reveal that as a prerequisite 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, as discussed hereinafter, careful scrutiny of the evidence placed on record brings to light the fact that the case of the prosecution is fraught with multiple inconsistencies, rendering the prosecution version incredible, owing to which, no presumption, as provided for under Section 52 of the Act, can be raised against the accused in the present case.
i). Doubtful Seizure Memo and Form M29.
18. A careful reading of the testimony of PW 3, 4 & 5 reflects that even before rukka was prepared and was sent to the P.S. through PW4 HC Ravi Dutt, Seizure memo Ex. PW3/A was prepared and Form M29 was filled and thereafter, upon registration of FIR, PW4 HC Ravi came to the spot and then IO PW5 HC Hari Om prepared the spot map and conducted further investigation. The narration of such a chronology of events leads to the irresistible conclusion that the seizure memo of the liquor and Form M29 were prepared at the spot, prior to the rukka being sent to the police station for registration of the FIR and that the FIR was, therefore, admittedly registered FIR No.11 /2020 St. Vs. Kailash Mandal 9 after the preparation of these documents. Accordingly, it follows that the number of the FIR would have come to the knowledge of the investigating officer only after a copy of the FIR was brought to the spot by PW4 HC Ravi Dutt. Thus, ordinarily, the FIR number and date should not find mention in the seizure memo, which document came into existence before registration of the FIR. However, quite surprisingly, perusal of seizure memo reflects the complete particulars of FIR. Further, even Form M29 is not on record and IO PW3 ASI Raj Kumar have not given any explanation as to why this document is not on record. Further, both these witnesses have also not given any explanation as to why the FIR number surfaced on a document which was prepared prior to the registration of the FIR. This fact casts a fatal doubt upon the case of prosecution.
19. At this stage, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Lalit v. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri. L.J. 127, wherein it was observed in paragraph 5 as follows:
"....Learned counsel for the state concedes that immediately after the arrest of the accused, his personal search was effected and the memo Ex.PW11/D was prepared. Thereafter, the sketch plan of the knife was prepared in the presence of the witnesses. After that, the ruqa Ex.PW11/F was sent to the Police Station for the registration of the case on the basis of which the FIR, PW 11/G was recorded. The F.I.R. is numbered as 36, a copy of which was sent to the I.O. after its registration. It comes to that the number of F.I.R. 36 came to the knowledge of the I.O. after a copy of it was delivered to him at the spot by a constable. In the normal circumstances, the F.I.R. No. should not find mention in the recovery memo or the sketch plan which had come into existence before the registration of the case. However, from the perusal of the recovery memo, I find that the FIR is mentioned whereas the sketch plan does not show the FIR No.11 /2020 St. Vs. Kailash Mandal 10 number of the FIR. It is not explained as to how and under what circumstances the recovery memo came to bear the F.I.R. No. which had already come into existence before the registration of the case. These are few of the circumstances which create a doubt, in my mind, about the genuineness of the weapon of offence alleged to have been recovered from the accused..."
20. The aforesaid ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi squarely applies to the facts in the present case as well, which leads to only one of the either inference, that is, either the FIR was registered prior to the alleged recovery of the illicit liquor, or that the seizure memo was prepared later in point of time. In either of the scenarios, a dent is created in the version of the prosecution, the benefit of which must accrue to the accused.
ii). The nonjoining of any independent / public witness.
21. It is evident from the record that no public witness to the recovery of the liquor has been either cited in the list of prosecution witnesses or has been examined by the prosecution. Apparently, PW3 had even asked public persons to join the investigation, however, they refused to join the investigation. Admittedly, no notice was served to such public persons upon their refusal to join investigation in the case. Thus, it is not the case of prosecution that public witnesses were not available at the spot. However, from a perusal of the record, no serious effort for joining public witnesses appears to have been made by the investigating officer. These facts are squarely covered by the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as, Anoop Joshi v State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), wherein it was observed as under:
"...18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made FIR No.11 /2020 St. Vs. Kailash Mandal 11 to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence 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..."
22. Further, in a case law reported as Roop Chand v. The State of Haryana, 1999 (1) C.L.R. 69, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:
"...The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the possession of the petitioner during noon time and it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses from the public were available and they were asked to join the investigation. The explanation furnished by the prosecution is that the independent witnesses were asked to join the investigation but they refused to do so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity between them and the petitioner..."
23. It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also as stated by all PWs, admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public FIR No.11 /2020 St. Vs. Kailash Mandal 12 refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the IO must have proceeded against them under the relevant provision of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for nonjoining the witnesses from the public is an afterthought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful.
24. In fact, in this regard, Section 100 of the Cr.P.C also accords assistance to the aforesaid finding, by providing that whenever any search is made, two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality are required to be made witnesses to such search, and the search is to be made in their presence. Under Section 100(8) Cr.P.C, refusal to be a witness can render such non willing public witness liable for criminal prosecution. Despite the availability of such a provision, no sincere attempts were made by the police to join witnesses in the present case. Therefore, noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of law, even though public witnesses were easily available in the vicinity, makes the prosecution version highly doubtful.
25. This Court is conscious of the legal position that nonjoining of independent witnesses cannot be the sole ground to discard or doubt the prosecution case, as has been held in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. However, evidence in every case is to be sifted through in light of the varied facts and circumstances of each individual case.
FIR No.11 /2020St. Vs. Kailash Mandal 13 As observed above, the testimony of the police witnesses in the present case is not worthy of credit. In such a situation, evidence of an independent witness would have rendered the much needed corroborative value, to the otherwise uncompelling case of the prosecution, as discussed above, and hereinafter.
iii). Possibility of misuse of seal of the investigating officer.
26. As per the prosecution story, after preparing seizure of the case property and the samples of illicit liquor with seal of 'RK', the aforesaid seal was handed over to PW4 Ct. Ravi Dutt vide seal handing over memo Ex. PW3/C. This fact cannot be ignored that PW4 HC Ravi Dutt was a recovery witness and had apprehended the accused and was subsequently, a part of the investigation in the present case. Thus, the seal was not handed over to any independent witness. There is nothing on record to suggest that PW3 ASI Raj Kumar had made efforts to handover the seal to any independent witness. Further, no taking over memo is on record to show the genuineness of fact of actual taking over of seal by PW3 ASI Raj Kumar from PW4 HC Ravi Dutt. In such a factual backdrop, since the seal was given to PW4 HC Ravi Dutt, the seal remained with the police officials of the same police station and therefore, the possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out. Moreover, it is not even the case of the prosecution that the seal was not within the reach of the IO and thus, there was no scope of tampering of case property.
27. In this regard, judgment in case titled as Ramji Singh v State of Haryana 2007 (3) RCR (CRIMINAL) 452, may be adverted to, wherein it was observed in paragraph 7 that:
"...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 FIR No.11 /2020 St. Vs. Kailash Mandal 14 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. In the present case, the seal of Investigating OfficerHoshiar Singh bearing impression HS was available with Maha Singh, a junior police official and that of Deputy Superintendent of Police remained with Deputy Superintendent of Police himself. Therefore, the possibility of tampering with seals as well as seized contraband and samples cannot be ruled out..."
28. Similarly, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Safiullah v. State, (1993) 49 DLT 193, had observed:
"9. ... The seal after use were kept by the police officials themselves therefore the possibility of tempering 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 tempered with. The prosecution could have proved from the CFSL form itself and from the road certificate as to what articles were taken from the Malkahana. Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused..."
29. It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the seal after use was handed over to any of the independent witness. In view of discussion made above, the conclusion which can be arrived at is that the seal remained with the Investigating Officer or with the other member of the raiding party therefore the possibility of interference or tempering of the seal and the contents of the parcel cannot be ruled out. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, the possibility of misuse of seal and tampering of case property cannot be ruled out.
FIR No.11 /2020iv). Arrival or departure entries of Police officials
30. In the present case, the prosecution did not even bring on record necessary DD entries to prove the arrival of raiding party (PW3 HC Raj Kumar, PW4 HC Ravi Dutt and PW5 Hari Om) from the spot of occurrence. Further, though the departure entry of raiding party consisting of PW3 and PW4 is on record however, it has not been proved in accordance with law and even the maker of this DD Entry i.e. PW3 ASI Raj Kumar also did not depose anything about making of this DD Entry. It should be noted that if PW3 HC Raj Kumar and PW4 HC Ravi Dutt had apprehended the accused Kailash Mandal with illegal liquor pursuant to information given by secret informer, the prosecution should have atleast proved the relevant DD entry. In the present case, even arrival and departure entry of the investigating officer is also not on record.
31. At this stage, reference can be taken from the provision enshrined in 22 rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules, which is reproduced as under;
"Chapter 22 rule 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.
32. Perusal of the above rule clearly suggests that the police officials are mandated to record their time of arrival and departure on duty at or from the FIR No.11 /2020 St. Vs. Kailash Mandal 16 police station. In the instant case, this provision has not been complied by the concerned police witnesses. The relevant entries regarding the arrival and departure of the police officials have not been filed or proved on record. It has been held in Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court 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..."
33. It is also important to note that PW3 ASI Raj Kumar stated that after apprehending the accused with illicit liquor, the champion (vehicle in which illicit liquor was found) was taken to AATS office and there only, the further investigation was conducted however, during his further deposition, he stated that after he handed over rukka to Ct. Ravi Dutt and he got the FIR registered, he returned to the spot along with IO/ PW5 HC Hari Om. If entire investigation was conducted in AATS office and PW3 HC Raj Kumar was present in AATS office, there was no reason for PW4 HC Ravi Dutt and IO to reach at the spot. Further, if IO had not reached to the spot, he could not have prepared the spot map. There is no explanation regarding these infirmities which creates further doutbs in the story of the prosecution.
34. It is also settled law that complainant and IO cannot be same however, in the present case, this principle has not been followed and primarily this FIR No.11 /2020 St. Vs. Kailash Mandal 17 investigation was conducted by PW3 HC Raj Kumar, who is complainant in the present case and IO HC Hari Om has only prepared site plan, arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure memo and no explanation has been given by prosecution regarding this fact, which further creates doubts in the story of prosecution.
35. Since in the present case, all the witnesses are police personnel and the necessary safeguards in the investigation have not been followed by the IO, I am of the view that the possibility of false implication of accused under the provisions of Excise Act cannot be ruled out at the instance of the police. Further, there is no explanation from prosecution regarding the abovenoted serious lacunaes in the investigation conducted by the police which constrains this court to draw an inference qua possibility of planted recovery upon the accused. The inference drawn above further gains strength from the fact that the police did not bother at all to discover the source of illicit liquor or to further enquire about the potential customers of the same.
36. There is no gain saying that if two reasonably probable and evenly balanced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily concede to the existence of a reasonable doubt. The aforementioned lacunaes in the story of the prosecution render the version of the prosecution doubtful, leading to the irresistible conclusion that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt has not been discharged by the prosecution. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring on record any cogent evidence in order to prove the commission of and guilt of the accused for offence U/S33 of Delhi Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt, thus, entitling the accused person to benefit of doubt and acquittal. Accordingly, this Court hereby FIR No.11 /2020 St. Vs. Kailash Mandal 18 accords the benefit of doubt to the accused for the offence U/S33 of Delhi Excise Act and holds the accused not guilty of commission of the said offence. Accused Kailash Mandal is thus, acquitted of the offence U/S33 of Delhi Excise Act.
37. The bail bonds, if any furnished by accused at the time of commencement of trail stands cancelled. Surety, if any stands discharged. Documents, if any shall be returned to its rightful owner as per rules. Endorsement, if any stands cancelled. Case property if any, shall be disposed off after expiration of period to assail this judgment and in case of appeal, as per the directions of Ld. Appellate Court. Case file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on (Aishwarya Sharma)
this day i.e. 23rd January, 2024 MM-01 South West District,
Dwarka, New Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 18 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(Aishwarya Sharma) MM-01 South West District, Dwarka, New Delhi FIR No.11 /2020 St. Vs. Kailash Mandal