Delhi District Court
State vs Aakashdeep on 22 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Ms. NEETIKA KAPOOR, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-06, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. : DLSW020563952021
FIR Number : 556/2020
Police Station : Dwarka North
Section : 33 Delhi Excise Act
STATE Vs. AAKASHDEEP
a) Cr. no. of the Case : 14471/2021
b) Name & address of the
Complainant : Ct. Sandeep, PIS No.
28981670.
c) Name & address of the accused : Aakashdeep, S/o Sh.
Santram, R/o D-68, Block
D, J.J. Colony, Sector 1,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
d) Date of Commission of offence : 29.10.2020
e) Offence complained of : 33 Delhi Excise Act
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Order : Acquittal
Date of registration of FIR : 29.10.2020
Final arguments heard on : 22.08.2025
Judgment Pronounced on : 22.08.2025
FIR No. 556/2020 State vs. Aakashdeep Page 1 of 11 Digitally signed
by NEETIKA
NEETIKA KAPOOR
Date:
KAPOOR 2025.08.22
17:36:39
+0530
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Aakashdeep is facing trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 33 Delhi Excise Act, 2009 in connection with the case FIR No. 556/2020 registered at P.S. Dwarka North.
2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 29.10.2020 at about 04:10 pm, Ct. Sandeep was on patrolling duty. During Patrolling, he saw a man carrying one plastic sack with him at Vardhman Market, Sector 3, Dwarka. On suspicion, Ct. Sandeep walked towards the man who seeing him tried to escapte but were apprehended by him. On checking the sack, same was found containing illicit liqour i.e. 03 cartons containing 48 bottles each of White and Blue Premium Whiskey (180 ml each) for sale in Haryana only. Information was sent to PS and after some time, HC Narender came to the spot. One quarter bottle from each carton was taken out as sample and remaining bottles were kept back in same and was sealed with the seal impression 'NK'. The illicit liquor was seized by HC Narender. Rukka was prepared, based on which present FIR was registered.
3. During investigation, IO impounded the illicit liquor, recorded the statement of witnesses. Accused was arrested and his personal search memo was prepared. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded. Based on the material collected, accused Aakashdeep was found prima facie responsible for the commission of offence punishable under Section 33 Delhi Excise Act. After completion of the investigation, case file was handed over by the IO to SHO of Police Station Dwarka North who after following the codal formalities, prepared and filed the instant challan against the accused.
4. On finding sufficient material on record against accused Aakashdeep, he was summoned before this court and on his appearance, copies of the challan and other documents were supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (herein referred to as Cr.P.C).
5. On finding a prima-facie case against the accused under Sections 33 Delhi Excise Act, charge was put to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to have a defence to make.
Digitally signed FIR No. 556/2020 State vs. Aakashdeep by NEETIKA Page 2 of 11NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.08.22 17:36:43 +0530
6. Thereafter, prosecution was called upon to adduce its evidence. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 02 witnesses.
(i) PW-1 HC Sandeep is the complainant in
the present case.
(ii) PW-2 HC Narender is the Investigating
Officer of the case.
7. Thereafter, statement of accused u/s 294 Cr.PC r/w Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded wherein he admitted following documents relied upon by the prosecution :
1. FIR No. 556/2020 Ex.P/A/1
2. Certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex.P/A/2
3. DD No. 67A Ex.P/A/3
4. DD No. 70A Ex.P/A/4
5. DD No. 124A Ex.P/A/5
6. Excise Control Laboratory Report dated 17.12.2020 Ex.P/A/6
8. After completion of prosecution evidence, incriminating evidence adduced by prosecution was put to accused by recording his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he denied the case of the prosecution in totality and claimed to have been falsely implicated in the present case. He opted not to lead any evidence in his defence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
9. I have heard Sh. Amit Yadav, Ld. APP for State and Sh. Sameer Goyal, Ld. Defence Counsel and have gone through the records carefully.
10. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He argued that there is ample material on record to prove that the recovery of illicit liquor was made from the accused.
He also argued that nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and ocular testimonies are duly supported by the Digitally FIR No. 556/2020 State vs. Aakashdeep signed by NEETIKA Page 3 of 11 NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.08.22 17:36:47 +0530 documentary evidence on record. As such, it is prayed that accused be punished for the said offence.
11. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. He asserted that not even a single independent witness has been brought on record to stand by the police and the recovery has been planted upon the accused. He further argued that testimonies of police witnesses contains material contradictions and the same cannot be relied upon and as such, it is prayed that accused be acquitted for the said offence.
12. On the basis of evidence on record, the following points arise for determination in the present case:
(i) Whether on 29.10.2020 at around 04:10 pm at Vardhman Market, Sector 3, Dwarka, New Delhi, accused was found in possession of 03 cartons of illicit liquor containing 48 quarter bottle each namely, White and Blue Premium Whiskey (180 ml each) for sale in Haryana only, without having a valid license/permit for the same, as alleged?
(ii) Final order.
13. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing the reasons for my findings, my findings on the aforesaid points are as under:
Point No. 1: No
Final order: The accused Aakashdeep is acquitted
as per the operative part of the judgment.
REASONS FOR FINDINGS
POINT NO. 1
14. Before dwelling into the facts of the case, it would be opposite to discuss the legal standards required to be met by both parties. In order to establish offence under Section 33 Delhi Excise Act, prosecution must fulfil all Digitally signed by NEETIKA FIR No. 556/2020 State vs. Aakashdeep NEETIKA KAPOOR Page 4 of 11 KAPOOR Date:
2025.08.22 17:36:51 +0530 the essential ingredients of the offence. Offence under Section 33 Delhi Excise Act,2009 is reproduced herein below:
"Penalty for unlawful import, export, transport, man- ufacture, possession, sale, etc. (1) Whoever, in contravention of provision of this Act or of any rule or order made or notification is-
sued or of any licence, permit or pass, granted under this Act-
(a) manufactures, imports, exports, transports or re- moves any intoxicant;
(b) constructs or works any manufactory or ware- house;
(c) bottles any liquor for purposes of sale; (D) used, keeps or has in his possession any mate-
rial, still, utensil, implement or apparatus, whatso- ever, 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 eb 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."
Digitally signed by NEETIKA KAPOOR FIR No. 556/2020 State vs. Aakashdeep NEETIKA Date: Page 5 of 11 KAPOOR 2025.08.22
17:36:55
+0530
15. It is trite that in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. On a bare perusal of the above offence, it can be called out that prosecution has to prove that accused was found in possession of illicit liquor and the possession of accused was without any license/permit. Thus, it is essential for prosecution to prove the recovery from the accused.
16. In the present case, all prosecution witnesses are police officials. PW-1 has claimed to be on patrolling duty, when he saw accused was standing at Vardhman Market, Sector 3, Dwarka, with one sack which was found containing illicit liquor and was subsequently, apprehended the accused.
17. PW-1 HC Sandeep stepped into the witness box and deposed that on 29.10.2020, he was posted at PS Dwarka North as Constable and was on patrolling duty at beat no.1, Sector-3, Dwarka, New Delhi. At about 4:10 pm, near Vardhman Market, Sector-3, Dwarka, he saw the accused Aakashdeep, who was later identified by name, keeping a plastic sack near the garbage and attempting to hide it. On being questioned about the goods kept in the sack, the accused became frightened. Upon checking, two cartons of illegal liquor of White and Blue brand were found in one plastic sack, and one carton of the same liquor was found in another plastic sack. The accused attempted to flee from the spot but was overpowered by him. He called the PS and after some time, HC Narender Kumar reached the spot. On checking, total of 48 quarter bottles of illicit liquor were found in each carton. One quarter bottle was taken as a sample from each carton. The samples were sealed with white cloth using the seal of NK. Seal was handed over to PW1. His statement was recorded by the IO. Rukka was prepared by the which and present FIR was registered. The case property was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/C. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D. Personal search memo of accused was prepared which is Ex.PW1/E. Form M-29 was filled by the IO. Witness correctly identified the accused in the court. Witness correctly identified the sample bottle as case property in the court which is Ex.P1.
18. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that he had reached the spot at about 4:15 pm and remained there till about 10:00 FIR No. 556/2020 State vs. Aakashdeep Digitally signed by NEETIKA Page 6 of 11 NEETIKA KAPOOR Date:
KAPOOR 2025.08.22 17:36:59 +0530 pm. The IO reached the spot at around 4:30 pm. Despite efforts, no public witnesses agreed to join the investigation, and no CCTV cameras were installed at the spot. He admitted that spot was a residential area. The case property was taken to the PS by the witness. He admitted that case property was not disposed of in his presence. He went to the PS with the Tehrir at about 5:00 pm and returned to the spot at about 7:30 pm. The seal after use was handed over to him. No seal handing over memo was prepared. He admitted that he used a smartphone with a camera but did not click photographs or record videography of the recovery. He denied the suggestion that all documents were prepared while sitting in PS. He denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated in the present matter.
19. Further, PW-2 ASI Narender Kumar stepped into the witness box and deposed that on 29.10.2020 at around 4:20 pm, he received DD No. 70A. He went to the spot i.e. Vardhman Market, Sector 3, Dwarka where he met Ct. Sandeep who produced case property and accused Aakashdeep. The case property was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. One sample bottle was taken from the gatta peti and remaining quarter bottles were placed back in the gatta peti and the said gatta pati was placed back in plastic katta which was sealed with the seal of "NK". The gatta peties contained 48 quarter bottles of each White and Blue Premium Whiskey for sale in State of Delhi only. He recorded statement of Ct. Sandeep which is Ex.PW1/A. He prepared Tehrir which is Ex.PW2/A and handed over the same to Ct. Sandeep for registration of FIR. After some time, Ct. Sandeep came back to the spot alongwith original tehrir, copy of FIR alongwith certificate u/s 65B IEA. Thereafter, site plan was prepared at instance of Ct. Sandeep which is Ex.PW1/B. He recorded disclosure statement of accused which is Ex.PW2/B. Thereafter, he arrested the accused and personally searched him vide memos Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E. Case property was deposited by me in Malkhana. I had sent the case property to Excise Lab. Thereafter, he had collected the result of excise Lab from Malkhana. He recorded statement of witnesses and filed the charge-sheet in the court. Witness correctly identified the accused in the court. Witness correctly identified the sample bottle as case property in the court which is Ex.P1.
Digitally signedFIR No. 556/2020 State vs. Aakashdeep NEETIKA by NEETIKA KAPOOR Page 7 of 11 KAPOOR Date: 2025.08.22 17:37:02 +0530
20. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that he reached the spot at around 4:32 pm and remained there for around 05 hour. He left the spot around 9:30 pm. During the entire course of the investigation, he did not join any public persons as witness in the instant case. 2-3 public persons were present who were asked to join investigation but they refused. He sent the case property to the Malkhana on the same day. Tehrir was prepared and handed over to Ct. Sandeep at around 6:40 pm and he came back to the spot at around 8:30 pm. Seal after use was handed over to Ct. Sandeep. No separate handing over memo was prepared. He denied the suggestion that the entire investigation was carried out while sitting at the PS. He denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and no recovery was effected from him. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
21. The prosecution has not tendered into evidence any arrival/departure entries of the official witnesses to support its case. The departure/arrival entry in the Daily Diary would have been a substantial piece of evidence to corroborate the version of the police officials. It is pertinent to mention here that the duty to record the departure and arrival is mandatory for the police officials, as per Rule 49, Chapter 22 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The relevant port of the said Rule reads as under-:
"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 of elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty. This entry shall be made immediately on the arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal."
22. Therefore, non-production of DD entries to prove that the witnesses were on patrolling duty on the day of incident, throws a doubt on the presence of the police officials at the place of incident.
Digitally signed by NEETIKA FIR No. 556/2020 State vs. Aakashdeep NEETIKA KAPOOR Page 8 of 11 KAPOOR Date:
2025.08.22 17:37:06 +0530
23. The major assertion of Ld. Counsel for the accused is that no independent witnesses were joined by the police during the whole investigation and same is doubtful. Although non-joining of independent witness cannot be a sole ground to discard the evidence of police witnesses, however, in the present case, as per the version of the members of the raiding party, the public persons were present at the spot when accused was apprehended with illicit liquor. Admittedly, no notice was issued to public persons to join investigations. The incident is of 29.10.2020 at around 4:10 pm at Vardhman Market, Sector 3, Dwarka, Delhi, which is a crowded area which was full of public persons and police officials were not hard pressed for time. As per documentary evidence there was ample time. Accused was apprehended at around 04:10 pm and FIR was registered at 07:10 pm. PW1 HC Narender had reached the spot at around 04:10 pm and had finally left the spot at around 10:00 pm. Therefore, it is clear that police officials were not hard pressed for time as they remained at the spot from 04:10 pm to 10:00 pm, however, despite being at the spot for more than five hours, they did not join any public witnesses in the present case. Inevitably all the police officials deposed that accused was present at the spot which is a residential area, thus, the spot itself was a crowded place which were full of public persons which in itself points towards presence of public persons. The fact that despite availability, no public persons were joined, casts doubt on the version of the prosecution. No sincere attempts were made by the police to join witnesses in the present case and there is no cogent explanation by the prosecution in this regard.
24. Defence of the accused is that the case property has been planted upon her. In this regard, PW-2 deposed that he had seized the case property and had sealed the same with the seal of 'NK' and deposed that same was handed over to Ct. Sandeep. There is no separate handing over memo or document of the seal in the present case. Pertinently, there is no documentary evidence to show if the seal was deposited in Malkhana and the same was outside the reach of the IO/other police officials. What was the fate of the seal remains unexplained. As such, it is seen that prosecution has not been able to lead evidence to show proper chain of Digitally signed by NEETIKA KAPOOR FIR No. 556/2020 State vs. Aakashdeep NEETIKA Date: Page 9 of 11 KAPOOR 2025.08.22 17:37:11 +0530 custody of the case property. The links are missing and benefit of the same must be given to the accused.
25. This finding is further strengthened by the fact that when the case property was asked to be produced in the court during trial, same was not produced. Report of Assistant Commissioner (Excise) dated 08.10.2021 (Ex.P2) was brought in the court whereby case property were reported to have been destroyed. In Manjit Singh Vs. State (2014) 214 DLT 646, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed that detailed panchnama containing the inventory should be prepared and photographs of the entire lot should be taken. It was further observed in Para No. 75 that sample along with photographs and panchnama would be sufficient evidence during trial. In the present case, no panchnama was produced. No photographs of the entire lot were produced. Even though Section 60 of the Excise Act provides that non production of the case property does not affect the conviction, however, provision also lays down that those samples and photographs of the confiscated property are to be preserved to meet the evidentiary requirements. Without production of any photographs and sample bottle of the case property, the standard cannot be said to be met beyond reasonable doubt.
26. Thus, from the above discussion, it is evident that circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to punch holes in version of the prosecution. The case of the prosecution cannot be set to be proved on the requisite threshold. Therefore, it is inevitable to conclude that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that illicit liquor recovered from possession of the accused. Accordingly, this point is answered in the negative and against the prosecution.
FINAL ORDER
27. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution was required to prove the offence charged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt but accused has been successful in pointing out the deficiencies in the case of prosecution. The recovery of the illicit liquor from the possession of the accused which was essential is highly doubtful and other FIR No. 556/2020 State vs. Aakashdeep Digitally signed by NEETIKA Page 10 of 11 NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.08.22 17:37:15 +0530 inconsistencies in the version of the prosecution witnesses have crumbled the case of the prosecution.
28. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, since the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused for commission of offence punishable under sections 33 Delhi Excise Act, beyond reasonable doubt, accused Aakashdeep is acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 33 Delhi Exicse Act.
29. The accused has already furnished personal and surety bonds as per the mandate of section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein she has undertaken that they shall put in her appearance before the appellate court within the prescribed period in case an appeal is filed and admitted for hearing. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced and signed in the open court on 22nd Day of August, 2025.
Digitally signedNEETIKA by NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date: 2025.08.22 17:37:22 +0530 (Neetika Kapoor) JMFC-06/SWD/Dwarka Court New Delhi/22.08.2025 **It is certified that this judgment contains 11 pages, and each page bears my signature** FIR No. 556/2020 State vs. Aakashdeep Page 11 of 11