Delhi District Court
State vs Karnail on 19 December, 2007
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 1124/99
PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi
U/s 61 of Pb .Excise Act, 1914
IN THE COURT OF DR.SHAHABUDDIN METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE:COURT ROOM NO.105, ROHINI COURTS DELHI
State vs Karnail
FIR No : 1124/99
PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi
U/s 61 of Pb .Excise Act, 1914
JUDGMENT
A. SL. No. of the case : 1124/99
B. Date of Institution in : 15.03.2000
the court
C. Date of commission of : 09.10.1999
offence
D. Name of the : HC Sajjan Singh
complainant
E. Name of the accused , : Karnail Singh S/o Sh. Duli
his parentage and Chand R/o F-2/270,
residence Sultanpuri Delhi.
F. Offence complained of : U/s 61 of Punjab Excise
or proved Act, 1914
G. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
H. Final Order : Acquitted
I. Date on which : 19.12.2007
judgment reserved
. Date of such judgment : 19.12.2007
Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 1124/99
PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi
U/s 61 of Pb .Excise Act, 1914
K) BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The main prosecution case against the accused is that on 09.10.1999 at about 7.15 PM at near Sulabh Sauchalay F6 Block Sultanpuri, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Sultanpuri Delhi, the accused was found in possession of one plastic cane containing 11 bottles of 750 ML each of country- made liquor without having any license / permit and in contravention of a Delhi Administration Notification in this regard. Hence, a chargesheet was filed against the accused after completion of entire investigation for the offence U/s 61 of Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (in short called as Punjab Ex. Act hereinafter).
2. Accused appeared in the court and he was supplied the copies of documents relied upon in the chargesheet as per mandate of section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( in short called as Cr.P.C hereinafter).
3. On 14.07.2000, a charge was framed against the accused for the offence U/s 61 of Punjab Ex.Act to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
4. From the side of prosecution, PW1 HC Hayat Ram, PW2 HC Ombir Singh, PW3 ASI Sajjan Singh and PW4 Ct Kuldeep Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 1124/99 PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 61 of Pb .Excise Act, 1914 Singh were examined and then remaining prosecution evidence (in short P/E) was closed.
5. On 09.10.2007, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the allegations against him as false and incorrect but he did not want to lead defence evidence.
6. Final arguments were heard today on 19.12.2007 from Ld. APP for State and from Ld. Defence counsel Shri Sanjeev Bisla on behalf of accused.
7. The main submissions of Ld. APP for State were to the effect that on the basis of entire material on record, the case stands well proved against the accused for the offence u/s 61 of Punjab Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt and that he should be punished strictly as per law.
8. On the other hand, the main submissions of Ld. Defence counsel were to the effect that accused was falsely implicated in this case; that nothing was recovered from his possession; that he was called in the police station on a false pretext and lateron this false case was planted upon him; that no independent and reliable person of the locality was joined by investigating officer (in short I/O) during investigation nor Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 1124/99 PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 61 of Pb .Excise Act, 1914 produced for evidence during trial of this case; that there are several material contradictions in the depositions of witnesses examined in this case; that the case does not stand proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. On the basis of these grounds mainly, acquittal of the accused was prayed for.
9. I perused the entire judicial file minutely in view of the above mentioned rival submissions.
10. Before proceeding further on the merits of this case, I refer to the relevant provisions of section 61 of Punjab Excise Act for which the charge was framed against the accused in this matter.
11. The relevant portion of section 61 of Punjab Excise Act is to the following effect:-
"61.(1) Penalty for unlawful import, export, transport, manufacture, possession, etc. -- Whoever, in contravention of any section of this Act or of any rule, notification issued or given there-under or order made, or of any license, permit or pass granted under this Act.--
a) Imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses any (intoxicant); or
b) constructs or works any distillery or brewery;
or
c) uses, keeps or has in his possession any materials, still, utensil, implement or apparatus Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 1124/99 PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 61 of Pb .Excise Act, 1914 whatsoever, for the purpose o manufacturing any (intoxicant) other than tari:
shall be punishable for every such offence with imprisonment for a term which may be extend to (three years) [ and with fine upto two thousand rupees and if found in possession of a working still for the manufacture of any (intoxicant) shall be punishable with the minimum sentence of six months imprisonment and fine of two hundred rupees]."
12. Now turning to the evidence of the record, PW1 is simply a formal witness as he was working as Duty Officer on 09.10.99 at PS Sultanpuri Delhi and recorded FIR in this matter of which copy is on record as Ex. PW1/A.
13. PW2 is also a formal witness as he was posted as MHC(M) at PS Sultanpuri Delhi on 09.10.99 and case property of this case was deposited with him and he had made entry of the same in Register No. 19 at S.No. 4960 of which copy is on record as Ex.PW2/A.
14. As regards depositions of PW3 and PW4 respectively, they have deposed about various steps taken during investigation of this matter. They have admitted in their depositions that public persons were present at the alleged place of recovery but they were not joined by the I/O during investigation despite the fact that the alleged place of recovery was a very busy locality. It is a serious lapse on the part of the Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 1124/99 PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 61 of Pb .Excise Act, 1914 prosecution. There are several other material contradictions in the depositions of both these witnesses. Hence, the case does not stand well proved against the accused for the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt.
15. In view of the above mentioned discussion and on the basis of entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution side has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence u/s 61 of Punjab Excise Act. Hence, accused is entitled to be acquitted for this offence. Accordingly, accused Karnail Singh S/o Duli Chand is hereby acquitted for the offence U/s 61 of Punjab Excise Act. His bail bonds are discharged and his surety also discharged. Case property be destroyed / disposed of as per rules after expiry of period of appeal / revision, as the case may be. File be consigned to record room as per rules. ANNOUNCED AND DICTATED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 19.12.2007 ( DR. SHAHABUDDIN ) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROHINI COURTS DELHI Contd....P/Next page