Delhi District Court
State vs Kiran on 4 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANSI MALIK
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-02
(CENTRAL DISTRICT), TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT020005552025
FIR No. 105/24
PS: Gulabi Bagh
State Vs. Kiran
U/s: 33 Delhi Excise Act
JUDGMENT
(a) CIS No. 3044/2025
(b) Date of offence 23.04.2024
(c) Complainant HC Vikky
(d) Accused Kiran W/o Sh. Ranjeet @Ravan,
R/o H. No. 10674, Gali no. 8,
Pratap Nagar, Delhi.
(e) Offence 33 Delhi Excise Act
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded Not guilty
(g) Final Order Acquittal
(h) Date of Institution 08.01.2025
(i) Date when judgment was 29.10.2025
reserved
(j) Date of judgment 04.12.2025
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
Digitally
signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2025.12.04
16:19:46
State vs. Kiran FIR no. 105/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 1 of 16 +0530
1. Succinctly, the case of prosecution is that the accused Digitally
signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
Kiran has been sent to face trial with the allegations that on MALIK Date:
2025.12.04
16:20:06
+0530
23.04.2024 at about 06:00 PM, at Gali no. 8, Veer Banda Vairagi Marg, Pratap Nagar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Gulabi Bagh, accused was found in possession of one white plastic katta containing 55 quarter bottles, 180ml each, of illicit lliquor of Santra Deshi Sharab for sale in Haryana only, without any li- cense or permit. Investigation was carried out. Upon completion of the investigation the instant charge-sheet for the offence pun- ishable under section 33 Delhi Excise Act was filed by the inves- tigating officer against the accused. The accused was then sum- moned by the undersigned.
2. The copies of charge sheet and relevant documents was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.PC).
3. Prima facie case was made out and charge for offence pun- ishable under Section 33 Delhi Excise Act was framed on 06.05.2025 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for recording of prosecu- tion evidence.
4. In order to substantiate the allegations, the prosecution examined three witnesses. At the onset it would be appropriate to have glance at the gist of deposition made by the witnesses:
5. PW-1/HC Vikky 3277/T deposed that on 23.04.2024 he was posted at PS Gulabi Bagh as HC and he along with Ct.
State vs. Kiran FIR no. 105/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 2 of 16 Pradeep and W/Ct. Pooja were on patrolling duty and reached Digitally signed by near Pratap Nagar at around 5:30 pm Gali No. 14, Veer Banda MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
Bairagi Marg. That one secret informer met him and told that one 2025.12.04 16:20:14 +0530 female namely Kiran who is habitual in selling illicit liquor will be coming from Shastri Nagar and will be going towards Pratap Nagar Gali No. 8 and if raided can be caught. That he immedi- ately requested 4-5 public persons to join the raid but none of them agreed to join and left the spot citing their personal reason. That at around 5:45 pm, he prepared a raiding party along with secret informer and Ct. Pradeep and W/Ct. Pooja and they reached in front of Gali No.8 near a Temple and took positions on the site of the temple and kept waiting for the female to come. That at around 6:00 pm one female coming from the Traffic light, Gulabi Bagh and was carrying a white plastic Katta on her left shoulder and seeing her the secret informer pointed towards her and he left from the spot and thereafter he along with W/Ct. Pooja approached the female and caught her. That on inquiry she told her name Kiran W/o Ranjit and they asked the lady to put down the plastic katta from her shoulder. That he checked the plastic katta and found to have contained around 55 quarter bot- tles of illicit liquor. That on each Bottle it was written 'SANTRA DESI SHARAB FOR SALE IN HARYANA ONLY 180 ML'. That he took one quarter bottle as sample and sealed its mouth with cloth and seal VK and sealed the remaining 54 quarter bot- tles in the same katta and sealed the mouth of katta with white cloth and seal VK and the sample was given marking A1 and the katta was given serial no. A2. That he filled the form M29 and hazed over the seal VK to Ct. Pradeep. That he recorded a seizure memo i.e. Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at point A State vs. Kiran FIR no. 105/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 3 of 16 and the form M-29 i.e. Ex.PW1/B bearing his signatures at point Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK A. That thereafter he recorded a tehrir and handed over the same MALIK Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:23 +0530 to Ct. Pradeep to get FIR registered at the PS i.e. Ex.PW1/C bearing his signatures at point A. That Ct. Pradeep returned with copy of FIR and original tehrir and HC Krishan also came to the spot and took over the investigation. That he handed the over sealed case property to HC Krishan and also handed over the cus- tody of accused Kiran to HC Krishan and HC Krishan prepared a site plan on his instance i.e. Ex.PW1/C bearing his signatures at point A. That HC Krishan recorded his statement and he was dis- charged from the investigation. PW-1 correctly identified the ac- cused as well as the case property in the court. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
6. PW-2/Ct. Pradeep deposed that on 23.04.2024 he was posted at PS Gulabi Bagh as Ct. and he along with HC Vikky and W/Ct. Pooja were on patrolling duty and reached near Pratap Na- gar at around 5:30 pm Gali No. 14, Veer Banda Bairagi Marg and one secret informer met HC Vikky and told him that one fe- male namely Kiran who is habitual in selling illicit liquor will be coming from Shastri Nagar and will be going towards Pratap Na- gar Gali No.8 and if raided can be caught. That HC Vikky imme- diately requested 4-5 public persons to join the raid but none of them agreed to join and left the spot citing their personal reason and at around 5:45 pm HC Vikky prepared a raiding party along with secret informer and him and W/Ct. Pooja. That they reached in front of Gali No.8 near a Temple and took positions on the site of the temple and kept waiting for the female to come. That at around 6:00 pm one female coming from the Traffic light, Gulabi State vs. Kiran FIR no. 105/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 4 of 16 Bagh and was carrying a white plastic Katta on her left shoulder Digitally signed by and seeing her the secret informer towards her and he left from MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.12.04 the spot. That thereafter HC Vikky along with W/Ct. Pooja ap- 16:20:32 +0530 proached the female and caught her and on inquiry she told her name Kiran W/o Ranjit. That they asked the lady to put down the plastic katta from her shoulder and HC Vikky checked the plastic katta and found to have contained around 55 quarter bottles of il- licit liquor. That on each Bottle it was written 'SANTRA DESI SHARAB FOR SALE IN HARYANA ONLY 180 ML' and HC Vikky took one quarter bottle as sample and sealed it mouth with cloth and seal VK and sealed the remaining 54 quarter bottles in the same katta and sealed the mouth of katta with white cloth and seal VK. That the sample was given marking A1 and the katta was given serial no. A2 and HC Vikky filled the form M29 and handed over the seal VK to him. That HC Vikky recorded a seizure memo i.e. Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at point B. That thereafter HC Vikky recorded a tehrir and handed over the same to him to get FIR registered at the PS and he went to PS and got the FIR registered through DO and returned with copy of FIR and original tehrir and HC Krishan also came to the spot and took over the investigation. That HC Vikky handed the over sealed case property to HC Krishan and also handed over the cus- tody of accused Kiran to HC Krishan. That HC Krishan prepared a site plan on instance of HC Vikky and thereafter HC Krishan interrogated the accused and served her a notice under section 41A CrPC and also recorded a disclosure i.e. Ex.PW2/A bearing his signatures at point A. That thereafter they returned to PS and State vs. Kiran FIR no. 105/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 5 of 16 his statement was recorded by HC Krishan. PW-2 correctly iden-
Digitally tified the accused in the court. The witness was duly cross-exam- signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
ined by Ld. Counsel for the accused. 2025.12.04 16:20:50 +0530
7. PW-3/Ct. Pooja deposed that on 23.04.2024, she was posted at PS Gulabi Bagh as Ct. and she alongwith HC Vikky and Ct. Pradeep were on patrolling and at about 5:30 PM when they reached at gali no. 14, Veerbanda Bairagi Marg, Pratap Na- gar and secret informer informed HC Vikky that one lady/ac- cused would bring illicit liquor and she would come from Shastri Nagar area and would go at Pratap Nagar Gali No. 8 and could get apprehended and HC Vikky asked public persons to join but none did so. That thereafter, at about 5:45 PM they stood at gali no. 8 near the temple and at about 6:00 PM one lady who was coming from red light of Gulabi Bagh and was carrying a white sack on her shoulder and secret informer pointed out towards her and he went and we stopped her and the sack was checked and same was carrying 55 quarter of Santra Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only 180 ml and HC Vikky took a sample given MarkA1 and sack was given Mark A2 and with the seal of VK and handed over to Ct. Pradeep and seized the said liquor and liquor vide memo i.e. Ex. PW-1/A bearing his signature at point C and endorsed the tehrir and Ct. Sandeep took it to PS and case got registered and he came back alongwith IO. IO prepared site plan and served notice upon the accused and case property was taken to PS. That IO recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. PW-3 correctly identified the accused in the court. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
State vs. Kiran FIR no. 105/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 6 of 16
8. PW-4/HC Kishan deposed that on 23.04.2024, he was posted at PS Gulabi Bagh as HC and investigation was marked to MANSI MALIK him after registration of FIR and he prepared site plan i.e. Ex. Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK PW1/D bearing his signature at point B and had recorded Date: 2025.12.04 16:20:57 +0530 statement of accused i.e. Ex.PW2/A bearing his signatures at point A and served notice upon the accused i.e. Ex.PW4/A bearing his signature at point A and case property was taken to PS and submitted in malkhana concerned. That he sent the sample to excise laboratory and procured the result i.e. Ex. A4 and prepared chargesheet and submitted before the Court. That he recorded statement u/s161 Cr.P.C of witnesses. PW-1 correctly identified the accused in the court.
9. The accused also admitted the genuineness of FIR no. 105/2024, PS Gulabi Bagh i.e Ex. A-1, Certificate u/s 65-B Indian Evidence Act regarding the aforesaid FIR i.e. Ex. A-2, DD No. 28A dt. 23.04.2024 PS Gulabi Bagh and Excise lab report dated 04.09.2024 i.e. Ex. A-4, without admitting the contents of the same. In view of the above, witnesses mentioned at serial no. 4 and 6 in the list of prosecution witnesses were dropped. Prosecution evidence was thereafter closed on 06.08.2025.
10. Statement of accused person was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC., wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused, to which she stated that she has been falsely implicated in this case. Further, the accused person did not opt to lead defence evidence and the matter was listed for final arguments.
State vs. Kiran FIR no. 105/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 7 of 16
11. The Court has carefully perused the case record and has heard arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the state as well as by Digitally signed by Ld. Defence counsel. MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.12.04 16:21:04 +0530
12. Short point for determination before the court is as under -
"Whether on 23.04.2024 at about 06:00 PM, at Gali no. 8, Veer Banda Vairagi Marg, Pratap Nagar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Gulabi Bagh, accused was found in possession of illicit lliquor for sale in Haryana only, without any license or permit.?"
13. It is argued by Ld. APP for the state that from the ocular and documentary evidence on record, prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused was found in possession of illicit liquor without permit and submitted that accused be convicted of the offence charged.
14. Per contra, it is argued by the Ld. counsel for the accused that accused is completely innocent and recovery of case property has been falsely implanted upon him. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel that non-joinder of public witness despite availability cast shadow of doubt on prosecution story. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that tampering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out as seal was not handed to the independent witness. At the end, it is submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused is liable to be acquitted of the alleged offence.
State vs. Kiran FIR no. 105/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 8 of 16
15. I have heard the rival submissions and have also carefully gone through the entire material available on record and evidence Digitally led on behalf of the prosecution. My findings on the point for signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
determination and brief reasons for the same are now being 2025.12.04 16:21:11 +0530 discussed in following paragraphs.
16. In present case, the prosecution was duty bound to prove the possession of the illicit liquor with the accused. Same is sought to be proved by the recovery memo and testimony of the witnesses. But the manner of conducting inquiry, seizure and search etc. on the spot at the time of arrest of the accused and alleged recovery of illicit liquor in this case, makes the prosecution version highly doubtful. Incident is stated to have happened at about 06:00 PM on 23.04.2024 and it is evident from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that the accused was apprehended alongwith the alleged unauthorised illicit liquor at a public place but still no public independent person was cited as a witness in this case.
17. The aforesaid observations have been deduced from the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 as well as PW-3. As per version of PW-2 and PW-3, after apprehension of the accused, public persons were available at the spot. They have further stated that no notice was served upon the passersby by PW-1, who refused to join the investigation. PW-1/HC Vikky has also stated that he did not record the names and addresses of any public witnesses. The said explanation given by PW-1 cannot be accepted by the court since, the IO was under obligation to issue notice in writing to the public persons, who refused to join the police investigation State vs. Kiran FIR no. 105/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 9 of 16 particularly in the background when the accused has already been Digitally signed by MANSI apprehended by the police and there was no apprehension that MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.12.04 16:21:20 accused might escape. Moreover, the IO has not even placed on +0530 record the names of the passerby who were asked to join the investigation and neither have any reasons been mentioned by the IO for refusal by the people who were approached to join the investigation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds that police has not made any sincere effort to join independent public witnesses during investigation. In this regard reliance is being placed on the following judgments:-
In a case law reported as "Anoop V/s State", 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shop-keepers 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".
In an case law reported as " Roop Chand V/s The State vs. Kiran FIR no. 105/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 10 of 16 State of Haryana", 1999 (1) C.L.R 69, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:-
"3. I have heard the learned counsel for Digitally signed by MANSI the parties and gone through the MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
evidence with their help. The recovery 2025.12.04 16:21:27 +0530 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 but they refused to do do so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity between them and the petitioner". "4. It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigation 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 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 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 he witnesses from the public had refused to to join the investigation, the State vs. Kiran FIR no. 105/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 11 of 16 Investigating Officer must have Digitally signed by proceeded against them under the MANSI MANSI MALIK relevant provisions of law. The failure MALIK Date:
2025.12.04 16:21:35 to do so by the police officer is +0530 suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful".
In case law reported as "Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab", 1997 (3) Crimes 55 the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court observed as under:-
"5. In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused" "6. In the present case, the State examined two witnesses namely, Harbans Singh ASI who appeared as PW1 and Kartar Singh. PW2. Both the witnesses supported the prosecution version in terms of the recovery of opium from the person of the petitioner, but there was no public witness who had joined. It is not necessary in such recoveries that public witnesses must be joined, but attempt must be made to join the public witnesses. There can be cases when public witnesses are reluctant to join or are not available. All the same, the prosecution must show a genuine attempt having been made to join a public witness or that they were not available. A stereo-type statement of non-availability will not be sufficient particularly when at the relevant time, it State vs. Kiran FIR no. 105/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 12 of 16 was not difficult to procure the service Digitally signed by of public witness. This reflects MANSI MANSI MALIK adversely on the prosecution version". MALIK Date:
2025.12.04 16:21:42 +0530
18. Considering the aforesaid observations made by the Higher Courts, the omissions/ failure on the part of investigating agency to join independent public witnesses create reasonable doubt in the prosecution story. Making bald averments that 4-5 passersby were asked to join the investigation but none agreed without giving any written notice to them does not inspire the confidence of the Court.
19. The next inconsistency in the case of the prosecution is the failure to prove the arrival and departure entries of the police officials. It is pertinent to mention that the present case rests entirely on the alleged recovery of case property, i.e. iilicit liquor from the possession of the accused at the relevant time by the police officials. Police officials are under a statutory duty to mark their departure and arrival in the register kept in the police station for above purpose as per the Punjab Police Rules. It is relevant here to reproduce Chapter 22 Rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which 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 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 State vs. Kiran FIR no. 105/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 13 of 16 be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal." Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.12.04 16:21:49
20. Since public persons were not joined in the investigation, +0530 the departure entry of the aforesaid police officials who formed part of the raiding party and had apprehended the accused with the case property becomes a vital piece of evidence. In the case in hand neither the departure entry nor arrival entry was proved by prosecution, however, proof of the said entry is indispensable as the present case rests solely on the alleged recovery made by the aforesaid police officials. Therefore, the failure to prove the aforementioned entries casts a doubt on the story of the prosecution.
21. Further, as per evidence on record, the seal after use was not given to any independent public person but was infact was retained by PW-1/HC Vikky, who was also a material prosecution witness being a witness to the alleged recovery of the illicit liquor from the possession of the accused, such material witness of a case is always interested in the success of the case of the prosecution and keeping in view of this factum chances of fabrication of case property cannot be ruled out. Moreover, no seal handing over memo is also on record. Hence, considering the legal position, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused, as tampering with case property in such a scenario cannot be ruled out. The reliance is placed on the judgment of Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2007 (3) R.C.C. (Criminal) 452, wherein it is held that-
"7. The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property. It is well State vs. Kiran FIR no. 105/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 14 of 16 settled that till the case property is not dispatched to the Digitally forensic science laboratory, the seal should not be signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK available to the prosecuting agency and in the absence of MALIK Date:
2025.12.04 16:21:56 +0530 such a safeguard the possibility of seal, contraband and the samples being tampered with cannot be ruled out." Similarly, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Safiullah v. State, 1993 (1) RCR (Criminal) 622, held that -
"10. The seals after use were kept by the police officials themselves. Therefore the possibility of tampering 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 tampered with. Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused."
22. From the aforesaid discussion, it is very clear that the manner in which the inquiry, seizure and search etc. has been conducted on the spot at the time of alleged recovery of weapon, makes the prosecution version highly doubtful. At this stage, it would also be worthwhile to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh vs State of Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 637) regarding the nature of burden of proof on the prosecu- tion to prove its case. The ratio of this judgment is applied with the same vigour even after passing of more than 50 years. It was held in this case that:- "There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the State vs. Kiran FIR no. 105/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 15 of 16 whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by le- Digitally signed by gal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.12.04 be convicted." Again in Jagdish Prasad vs State (Govt Of NCT 16:22:04 +0530 Of Delhi) 2011 (9) LRC 206 (Del), the Hon'ble High of Delhi had observed that "It is well settled that in a criminal case, in or- der to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution is re- quired to establish the guilt beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. If, on consideration of the prosecution evidence, a reason- able doubt remains in respect of culpability of the accused, he is entitled to benefit of doubt.
23. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of considered view that in the present case the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused Kiran beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused Kiran is acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act.
24. Bail bonds u/s 437A of CrPC are to be furnished which would remain valid for a period of six months.
Announced in the open (MANSI MALIK)
Court on 4th December, 2025 Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-02
Central/Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
State vs. Kiran FIR no. 105/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 16 of 16