Delhi District Court
State vs Amit Bairu on 9 May, 2025
THE COURT OF MS. SUKRITI SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04, WEST
ROOM NO. 268, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE
VERSUS
AMIT BAIRU
CASE No. 7713/2019
FIR No. 82/2019
P.S. - Khyala
U/S- 33/38 Delhi Excise Act,
2009
1. Date of commission of offence : 16.03.2019
2. Name of the Complainant : ASI Mahabir Singh
3. Name of the accused,
and his parentage and residence : Amit Bairu S/o Sh. Jagdish
Kumar, R/o H.No. WZ-283/15
A, Ground Floor, West Block,
Vishnu Garden, Delhi
4. Date when judgment : 04.04.2025
was reserved
5. Date when Judgment : 09.05.2025
was pronounced
6. Offence Complained of : Section 33/38 of Delhi
or proved Excise Act 2009
7. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final Judgment : Acquitted
FIR No. 82/2019 State Vs Amit Bairu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 1
1. BRIEF FACTUAL POSITION:-
1.1 The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 16.03.2019, at
about 08:55 PM in front of H.No.WZ-283/15, Gali No.3, West Block, Vishnu Garden, Khyala, Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station - Khyala, accused Amit Bairu was found in possession of 155 quarter bottles of 'Crazy Romeo Whisky for sale in Arunachal Pradesh only' each without any license, permit or pass and in contravention of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009. Case property was seized and the present case was registered, starting the investigation in the present matter.
1.2. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed on 27.09.2019 indicting the accused for commission of the offence U/s 33/38 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009. Ld. Predecessor took cognizance on the same day. Copy of the chargesheet in compliance with Section 207 CrPC was supplied on 26.02.2020.
1.3. Charge for the offence U/s 33/38 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 was framed against the accused on 18.03.2021 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At this stage, it is noted that the charge has been framed only with regards to 100 quarter bottles recovered from the accused and not the remaining 55 quarter bottles. On 18.03.2021, proceedings u/s 294 CrPC were also conducted wherein the accused admitted copy of FIR No.82/19, DD No.61 A and 41 B dated 16.03.2019 & 17.03.2019 and excise result dated 22.05.2019.
FIR No. 82/2019 State Vs Amit Bairu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 2
2. MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
2.1 The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined 05 witnesses in total, the details whereof along with documents exhibited thereby are given as under:
S. Name of Documents Dates of Dates of
No. Prosecution Exhibited in examination- cross-
witnesses Evidence. in-chief. examination
PW- HC Anil (i) Seizure 20.10.2022 20.10.2022
1 Kumar memo -
Ex.PW1/A
(ii) Arrest
memo -
Ex.PW1/B
(iii) Personal
Search memo
- Ex.PW1/C
(iv) Case
property -
Ex.P1
(iii)
Confiscation
order,
destruction
order
alongwith
report
annexed with
certificate and
the extract of
entries -
FIR No. 82/2019 State Vs Amit Bairu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 3
Ex.P2 (colly).
PW- HC Roop NIL 20.03.2023 25.05.2023
2 Singh
PW- Ct. NIL 20.03.2023 29.07.2024
3 Dharmender
PW- Retired SI (i) Tehrir - 12.04.2024 12.04.2024
4 Mahavir Singh Ex.PW4/A
(ii) Site plan -
Ex.PW4/B
PW- HC Krishan (i) Disclosure 24.02.2025 24.02.2025
5 statement -
Ex.PW5/A
2.2 PW-1 was HC Anil Kumar who deposed that on 16.03.2019, he was
posted at PS Khyala as constable and on that day, he alongwith Ct.
Dharmender and ASI Mahabir Singh left the police station in the evening for patrolling duty and during the patrolling duty at about 08.55 PM, when they reached at Gali No.3, West Block, Vishnu Garden in front of H.No. WZ- 283/15, accused namely Amit Bairu was present there. He had two sacks in his possession. On suspicion, the said accused was asked to stop there, but he did not respond and then he was apprehended at that place. Accused was asked about the material kept by him in the said two sacks and when he did not respond, the said two sacks were checked and found containing illicit liquor brand of 'Crazy Romeo Whisky for sale in Arunachal Pradesh only'. One sack was containing 100 quarter bottles and the second sack was containing 55 quarter bottles of aforesaid mark. Some passersby were requested to join the recovery proceedings but none agreed and left the spot FIR No. 82/2019 State Vs Amit Bairu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 4 without disclosing their names and addresses. One quarter bottle from each sack and in total two quarter bottles were taken out as sample, while the remaining were kept in the respective sacks which were moored with white cloth and sealed with the seal of 'MST'. The two quarter bottles taken out as sample were also moored from bottleneck with white cloth and sealed with the seal of 'MST'. The samples were given serial no.S1 and S2. Seal after use was handed over to Ct. Dharmender and the recovered liquor was taken into possession vide seizure memo. IO prepared rukka/ tehrir and handed over the same to PW-1 for the registration of FIR whereupon he got the present case FIR registered alongwith HC Krishan, to whom further investigation was entrusted. At the spot, HC Krishan prepared the site plan and further arrested and personally searched the accused vide memos. After completion of aforementioned proceedings, accused was taken to the police station, where he was put behind the bars after getting his medical examination and the case property was deposited by the IO with MHC(M). In this regard, statement of PW-1 u/s 161 CrPC was recorded. The witness was duly cross-examined by the defence.
2.3 PW- 2 was HC Roop Singh who deposed that on 04.04.2019, he was posted at PS Khyala as constable. On that day he was handed over two quarter sample bottles, excise form duly sealed with seal of 'MST' by MHC (M) for depositing the same at Excise Office. Accordingly, PW-2 deposited the same in Excise Office and returned a copy of RC to MHC(M). Till the sample remained in his possession, the same was not tampered with. The witness was duly cross-examined by the defence.
FIR No. 82/2019 State Vs Amit Bairu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 5 2.4 PW- 3 was Ct. Dharmender who deposed on 16.03.2019, he was posted at PS Khyala as constable and on that day, he alongwith Ct. Anil and ASI Mahabir Singh were on patrolling duty in beat no.3. At about 08.45 PM, when they reached at T-Block, Vishnu Garden, Khyala, a secret information was passed to ASI Mahaveer that one person was carrying illicit liquor at WZ Block. Thereafter, IO asked three four public person to join the raiding party but they refused. Thereafter, they reached at Gali No.3, WZ Block, Vishnu Garden in front of H.NO. WZ- 283/15, they saw that accused was present there and he was having one katta in his hand and one katta lying on the floor. He was found to be suspicious. He disclosed his name as Amit Bairu and the said two kattas were checked and found containing illicit quarter bottles bearing mark brand of 'Crazy Romeo Whisky for sale in Arunachal Pradesh only'. One sack was containing 100 quarter bottles and the second sack was containing 55 quarter bottles of aforesaid mark. Some passersby were requested to join the recovery proceedings but none agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. One quarter bottle from each sack and in total two quarter bottles were taken out as sample. Excise form was filled at the spot. The remaining bottles were kept in the same katta. Katta and sample bottle were duly sealed with seal of 'MST'. Seal after use was handed over to PW-3 and the recovered liquor was taken into possession vide seizure memo. Thereafter, IO prepared rukka/ tehrir and handed over the same to Ct. Anil for the registration of FIR. He went to the police station alongwith the copy of rukka and after registration of FIR came to the spot alongwith HC Krishan, who conducted the further investigation of the case. At the spot, HC Krishan prepared the site plan. The accused was arrested and his personal FIR No. 82/2019 State Vs Amit Bairu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 6 search was taken vide memos. After completion of aforementioned proceedings, the present accused was taken to police station, where he was put behind the bars after getting his medical examination and the case property was deposited by the IO with MHC(M). In this regard, statement of PW-3 u/s 161 CrPC was recorded. The witness was duly cross-examined by the defence.
2.5 PW-4 was Retired SI Mahavir Singh who deposed that on 16/03/2019, he was posted at PS Khyala as ASI and vide DD No.41B he along with Ct. Dharmender and Ct. Anil were on patrolling and at about 08.40 PM they reached at Gali No.02, West Block, Vishnu Garden, Delhi and secret informer disclosed that one person with the name of Amit dropped two kattas of illicit liquor in Gali No.3 and was keeping the same in his house. After receiving the said information, he requested the passersby to join the investigation but they refused the same and due to paucity of the time no notice could be served upon them. PW-4 alongwith his staff reached at Gali No.3, House No.WZ-283/15 at about 08.55 PM and one person, after seeing them, started running inside the house and one katta was lying outside the house and he was trying to keeping it aside. PW-4 somehow apprehended the accused and came to know his name as Amit and requested the passersby to join the investigation but they did not do so. PW-4 checked the katta and total 100 quarters of illicit liquor with the label 'Crazy Romeo whisky for sale in Arunachal Pradesh only' were found. NV Distilleries Prevenies was written and the katta was given serial no.1 and one quarter sample was taken from it. Mouth of said katta was moored with white cloth and the sample was given FIR No. 82/2019 State Vs Amit Bairu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 7 serial no.S1. On checking the other katta possessed by accused, total 55 quarter bottles were found in it with label of 'Crazy Romeo Whisky for sale in Arunachal Pradesh only' with NV Distilleris Prevenies written and the said katta was given serial no.2. The sample taken was given serial no.S2 and PW-4 seized the said katta and samples with his seal of 'SMP' and filled the form M-29 and seized the said case property. Seal was handed over to Ct. Dharmender. PW-4 prepared tehrir and handed over the same to Ct. Anil, who took the same to police station and case was registered. PW-4 remained at the spot till that time and the investigation of the same was marked to HC Kishan who also came to the spot. Ct. Anil came to the spot and PW-4 handed over the accused alongwith the case property to IO. IO had written FIR Number on the seizure memo of the case property and prepared site plan at the instance of PW-4. IO recorded statement of PW-4 u/s 161 CrPC. The witness was duly cross-examined by the defence.
2.6 PW-5 was HC Krishan who deposed that on 16.03.2019, he was posted as Head Constable at PS Khyala. On that day, investigation of the present case was marked to him after registration of FIR. Ct. Anil handed over to him copy of FIR and original rukka. Thereafter, PW-5 alongwith Ct. Lalit went to the spot and met ASI Mahaveer and Ct. Dharmender who produced accused Amit alongwith case property. ASI Mahaveer handed over the seizure memo and form M-29, PW-5 filled the particulars of FIR on those documents. Thereafter, at the instance of ASI Mahaveer, PW-5 prepared site plan of the spot and recorded supplementary statement of ASI Mahaveer and he was relieved from the spot. After interrogation, accused Amit was arrested vide FIR No. 82/2019 State Vs Amit Bairu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 8 arrest memo. The personal search of the accused was also conducted vide personal search memo. PW-5 also recorded disclosure statement of the accused. Accused alongwith the case property was taken to police station. The case property was deposited in malkhana. Accused was medically examined in the hospital and thereafter he was kept in lockup. PW-5 recorded statement of Ct. Anil and Ct. Dharmender u/s 161 CrPC. On next day, accused was produced before the court and was sent to JC by order by this court. During investigation, on 04.04.2019, samples were deposited in Excise Laboratory through Ct. Roop Singh and PW-5 recorded statement of Ct. Roop Singh and MHC (M) HC Randhir. After some time, result was received from Excise Laboratory. After completion of investigation, PW-5 filed the chargesheet before the court. The witness was duly cross-examined by the defence.
3. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C :
3.1 The prosecution evidence was closed upon submissions on behalf of the State on 24.02.2025. After the prosecution evidence was closed, the entire incriminating evidence was put to accused person in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. and statement of accused was recorded separately on 21.03.2025 wherein he denied the allegations and tendered explanation that he had been falsely implicated and nothing was recovered from his possession. He opted not to lead any DE in his defence.
4. ARGUMENTS:
4.1 Ld. APP for the State has argued that the accused person was apprehended with the case property which was recovered from him and on a combined reading of prosecution witnesses' testimony, offence under section FIR No. 82/2019 State Vs Amit Bairu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 9 33/38 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 stand proved beyond reasonable doubt, against the accused person.
4.2 On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused person has argued that there is no legally admissible evidence against the accused person and that the prosecution witnesses have contradicted each other at several vital points. He also argued that no seal handing over memo had been prepared and the sanctity of the seal was not beyond question. He submitted that no videography, photography, examination of any public witness was done hence the recovery was doubtful. He argued that prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the accused person is entitled to be acquitted.
5. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS ON MERITS:
5.1 In the present case, the accused person has been charged with the offence U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act, for being found in possession of illicit liquor without any licence, permit or pass, and in contravention of the notification issued by the Delhi Government.
5.2 Section 33 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 states that:
'whoever, in contravention of provisions 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;
FIR No. 82/2019 State Vs Amit Bairu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 10
(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 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 with fine, which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees which may extend to one lakh rupees'.
5.3 Section 38 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 states that:
'whoever has in his possession any liquor knowing the same to have been unlawfully imported, transported or manufactured or knowing the prescribed duty not to have been paid thereon, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and fine which may extend to one lakh rupees'.
5.4. From a combined reading of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses examined and the material placed on record in the final report, several doubts have been created over the factum of alleged recovery from the accused. To begin with, the apprehending witnesses have failed to place any DD entry regarding their patrolling duty on record. While the first i.e. PW-1 FIR No. 82/2019 State Vs Amit Bairu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 11 did not recall the time at which they had left the police station for patrolling, PW-3 stated that the time at 05.30 pm and PW-4 stated the time as 08.10 pm. It is also abundantly clear that the investigating authority has not made any effort to have any public witness join the proceedings at the time of recovery, arrest or completing other formalities. PW-1 and PW-3 stated in their respective testimonies that the spot was residential area and public persons had been asked to join the investigation but none had joined. No notice was served and their names and addresses were not noted. On the other hand, PW-5 claimed that there were no public persons at the spot but stated that he had tried to get neighbours to join the investigation.
5.5 When a statutory provision mandates that an independent witness has to be joined in the investigation, the IO is duty bound to comply with the same. Merely stating that the public persons refused to join the investigation is not sufficient to serve the purpose of the prosecuting agency, more so, when the IO failed to even record the names and details of such person, and failed to take any required steps in terms of provisions of Cr.P.C and IPC as noted below.
Section 100(4) Cr.P.C states that,"before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate, or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do"....
FIR No. 82/2019 State Vs Amit Bairu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 12 Section 37 Cr.P.C. states that, "every person is bound to assist a Magistrate or police officer reasonably demanding his aid-(a) in the taking or preventing the escape of any other person whom such Magistrate or police Officer is authorized to arrest ; or (b) in the prevention of suppression of a breach of the peace; or (c) in the prevention of any injury attempted to be committed to any railway, canal, telegraph or public property".
Section 42 Cr.P.C. states that, "when any person who, in the presence of the police officer, has committed or has been accused of committing a non-cognizable offence refuses, on demand of such officer, to give his name and residence, or gives a name or residence which such officer has reason to believe to be false, he may be arrested by such officer in order that his name or residence may be ascertained.
(2) When the true name and residence of such persons have been ascertained, he shall be released on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, to appear before a Magistrate, if so required;
Provided that, if such person is not resident in India, the bond shall be secured by a surety or sureties resident in India.
(3) Should the true name and residence of such person not be ascertained within twenty-four hours from the time of arrest, or should he fail to execute the bond, or, if so required, to furnish sufficient sureties, he shall forthwith be forwarded to the nearest Magistrate having jurisdiction".
FIR No. 82/2019 State Vs Amit Bairu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 13 Section 187 IPC states that, " whoever, being bound by law to render or furnish assistance to any public servant in the execution of his public duty, intentionally omits to give such assistance, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such assistance be demanded of him by a public servant legally competent to make such demand for the purpose of executing any process lawfully issued by a Court of Justice, or of preventing the commission of an offence, or of suppressing a riot, or affray, or of apprehending a person charged with or guilty of an offence, or of having escaped from lawful custody, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both".
5.6 The importance of getting independent witnesses to join the investigation has been laid out by the superior courts in a catena of judgments. In Roop Chand Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1990 (1) CLR 69, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana observed that such explanations that public persons refused to join the proceedings are unreliable. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also noted in the case of Pradeep Narayana Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1995 SE 930 that failure of the police to get persons from the locality to join the investigation during search creates doubt about its fairness, benefit of which has to be given to the accused. In the present matter, hence, the chances of false implication and planted recovery, FIR No. 82/2019 State Vs Amit Bairu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 14 as alleged by the defence, cannot be ruled out.
5.7 There are other discrepancies casting a doubt over the prosecution chain of events. For instance, PW-3 and PW-4 stated that they had reached the spot and apprehended the accused on the basis of a secret information received by PW-4. However, PW-1 does not mention any such secret information and states that the police officials had discovered the accused by chance during patrolling. PW-4 also stated that the accused had started running inside the house and trying to keep the katta inside after seeing the police officials, which the other witnesses have not stated. Further, PW-5 has mentioned that he came to the spot from the police station with one Ct. Lalit, however, such person is neither mentioned in the list of prosecution witnesses nor named by any of the other witnesses examined. There are also discrepancies regarding the timing of investigation proceedings. For instance, PW-3 stated that the tehrir was taken to the police station at 10.15 pm and brought back at 10.40 pm, presumably the same time that the IO reached the spot. However, PW-4 first stated that the tehrir was taken at 10.00 pm and brought back one hour later i.e. 11.00 pm and then stated further in his cross- examination that the IO had come to the spot with Ct. Anil at 10.30 am. The IO i.e. PW-5, meanwhile, stated that he had left the police station itself at 11.00 pm. These discrepancies were never resolved by the prosecution.
5.8 The defence has also pointed out the discrepancies regarding sanctity of seal on the case property and the same is supported by the cross- examination of the witnesses. Firstly, it is noted that PW-1 & PW-3 stated FIR No. 82/2019 State Vs Amit Bairu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 15 that the property was sealed with the seal of 'MST' whereas PW-4 stated that the seal was of 'SMP'. Further, all the witnesses stated that the seal after use was handed over to PW-3 and PW-3 stated that he had deposited the seal in the maalkhana on the same day. On the other hand, PW-4 stated that he got the seal back from PW-3 upon returned to the police station and then contradicted himself by stating that he got his seal back from PW-1 before leaving the spot. As admitted by the witnesses, no seal handing over or return memo was made. Admittedly, the seal was never handed over to any independent person and remained with the officials of the same police station, if not the IO himself. Tampering with the case property as well as the seal cannot be ruled out in such a case. No independent witness was examined with respect to the same and no photography or videography was done during recovery, sealing or seizure proceedings. In a case where only police witnesses are available, it becomes incumbent upon such officials to comply with all procedural requirements and failure of the same shall work in the favour of the accused.
5.9 Additionally, the seizure memo in the present case is stated to have been made prior to preparation of tehrir and registration of FIR by all recovery witnesses and all the witnesses reiterated the same in their cross examination. PW-1 even confirmed in his cross examination that it had been prepared in one go and no addition was done to it later on. PW-3 on the other hand stated that FIR number was written down by the second IO whereas the second IO i.e. PW-5 confirmed the same in his examination-in-chief but in his cross-examination, he stated that he did not make any endorsement on the FIR No. 82/2019 State Vs Amit Bairu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 16 seizure memo and form M-29 regarding addition made later. However, the seizure memo bears complete particulars of the present case FIR in the same handwriting as the rest of the documents. This raises doubt on the proceedings as the implication is that either the FIR was registered prior in time or the document in question was prepared later on at the police station. In both cases, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused person.
5.10 Most importantly, the very existence of violation of the excise policy has been brought into question as only two quarter bottles among those seized were sent for chemical analysis and found to contain alcohol. The presence of alcohol in the remaining allegedly recovered liquor bottles has not been proved by the prosecution and accused has not even been charged for the lot from which one sample was drawn i.e. the 55 quarter bottles in the second sack. Now, since the State has only found two bottles containing 180 ml alcohol each, allegedly recovered from the accused, an offence under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 cannot be said to have been made out, as the same falls within the maximum permissible limit specified under Rule 20 of the Delhi Excise Rules, 2010. No batch number of the remaining bottles corresponding to the sample were noted to indicate similarity of contents.
5.11 The cardinal principle of law that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, remains the dictating factor. The standard of proof in criminal cases is not preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond all reasonable doubt. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that culpability cannot be established on surmises and conjectures but it should FIR No. 82/2019 State Vs Amit Bairu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 17 rest on cogent, reliable and clinching evidence, dispelling every doubt and bulwarking the fact that in all possibility, the offence must have been committed by the accused. In the present case it is apparent that the case of the prosecution suffers from several glaring loopholes and the possibility of planted or tampered recovery cannot be ruled out. Under the circumstances, it would not be legally viable to convict the accused merely on the basis of testimony of the police officials. Hence, accused Amit Bairu S/o Sh. Jagdish Kumar, R/o H.No. WZ-283/15 A, Ground Floor, West Block, Vishnu Garden, Delhi is acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 33/38 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN SUKRITI Digitally signed by SUKRITI SINGH COURT ON 09.05.2025 SINGH Date: 2025.05.10 15:28:41 +0530 (SUKRITI SINGH) JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04/WEST/ TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI Containing 18 pages, all signed by the presiding officer SUKRITI Digitally signed by SUKRITI SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.10 15:28:44 +0530 (SUKRITI SINGH) JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04/WEST/ TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI FIR No. 82/2019 State Vs Amit Bairu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 18