Delhi District Court
State vs Dhanpati@Dhanni on 6 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAURAV KATARIYA, JMFC-07, NORTH-
WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
DLNW020262322019
State Vs. Dhanpati@Dhanni
Case No 5613/2019
FIR No. 0115/2018
PS: South Rohini
U/s : 33 Delhi Excise Act, 2009.
JUDGMENT
ID number of the case : DLNW020262322019
Date of commission of offence : 28.04.2018
Date of institution of the case : 23.09.2019
Name of the complainant : ASI Raju Palwe
Name of accused and address : Dhanpati@Dhanni W/o Lt. Matadin R/o
Jhuggi No. 465, Indira J.J Camp, Sector-3,
Rohini, Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquittal
Date of judgment : 06.04.2026
GAURAV
KATARIYA
Digitally signed by
GAURAV KATARIYA
State V. Dhanpati@Dhanni FIR No. 0115/2018 Page No. 1 of 15 Date: 2026.04.06
17:09:42 +0530
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:-
01. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 28.04.2018 at about 08:50 p.m, at Jhuggi No. 465, Indira J.J Camp, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S, South Rohini, the accused was found in possession of one plastic katta containing 50 quarter bottles of Asli Santra Masaledar Desi Sharab (for sale in Haryana only), as per seizure memo Mark X without any permit or licence. Accordingly, she stands charged for offence U/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009.
02. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed and the accused was consequently summoned. Charge u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act was framed against the accused by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 22.01.2020, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
03. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined four witnesses.
ORAL EVIDENCE
PW-1:- ASI Raju Palwe (Complainant)
PW-2:- Ex. Ct. Anil
PW-3:- W/Ct. Priyanka
PW-4:- HC Babu Lal (IO)
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex. PW-1/A:- Seizure Memo of illicit liqour.
Ex. PW-1/B:- Rukka
Ex. PW-1/C:- Site Plan
Ex. PW-1/D:- Form M-29.
State V. Dhanpati@Dhanni FIR No. 0115/2018 Page No. 2 of 15
GAURAV
KATARIYA
Digitally signed by
GAURAV KATARIYA
Date: 2026.04.06
17:09:47 +0530
Ex. PW-2/A:- Disclosure Statement of Accused.
Ex. P-A DD No. 50B
Ex. P-B Copy of Registered FIR
Ex. P-C Endorsement on Rukka
Ex. P-D Certificate U/s 65(B) of Evidence Act, 1872.
Ex. P-E Excise result dt. 08.08.2019
Ex. P-F Statement of Ct. Nar Singh.
Ex. P-G Statement of MHC(M) along with Register No. 19 and 21.
04. HC Raju Palwe was examined as PW-1. He deposed that on 28.04.2018, while posted as Head Constable at PS South Rohini, a secret informer approached him at the police station and informed that illicit liquor was stored in a jhuggi at Indra J.J. Camp, Gaye Wali Gali, and that a lady could be apprehended if a raid was conducted. He produced the informer before the SHO, who, after being apprised of the facts, permitted him to conduct a raid. Thereafter, he constituted a raiding party comprising W/Ct. Priyanka and Ct. Anil and, along with the secret informer, proceeded to the spot in a private vehicle. Upon reaching the said jhuggi, he requested 4-5 public persons to join the proceedings; however, none agreed and left without disclosing their particulars, and no notice was served upon them. The secret informer pointed towards the jhuggi and was thereafter relieved. He, along with the raiding party, entered the jhuggi and, upon search, found a white plastic katta lying behind the left side of the door containing illicit liquor. One lady present therein disclosed her name as Dhanpati @ Dhanni. The accused was handed over to W/Ct. Priyanka, and upon checking, the katta was found containing 50 quarter bottles of "Asli Santra Masaledar Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only"
(180 ml each). One bottle was taken as sample and sealed with the seal of "RP", and the remaining bottles were also sealed in the same manner; the seal after use was handed over to Ct. Anil. The case property was seized vide State V. Dhanpati@Dhanni FIR No. 0115/2018 Page No. 3 of 15 GAURAV KATARIYA Digitally signed by GAURAV KATARIYA Date: 2026.04.06 17:09:50 +0530 seizure memo Ex. PW1/A bearing his signatures at point A, and Form M-29 Ex. PW1/D was filled at the spot. He prepared the rukka Ex. PW1/B and handed it over to Ct. Anil for registration of FIR, who returned to the spot along with IO/ASI Ramesh Kumar. Thereafter, he handed over the custody of the accused and the case property to the IO, who prepared the site plan Ex. PW1/C at his instance and recorded the disclosure statement of the accused. Thereafter, they returned to the police station, where his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
This witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
05. Ex. Ct. Anil was examined as PW-2. He deposed that on 28.04.2018, while posted as Constable at PS South Rohini, a secret informer came to the police station and informed HC Raju Palwe that a lady was keeping illicit liquor in a jhuggi at Indira J.J. Camp, Gaye Wali Gali, South Rohini, Delhi. After obtaining permission from the SHO, a raiding party comprising HC Raju Palwe, W/Ct. Priyanka and himself was constituted, and they proceeded to the spot in a private car along with the secret informer. Upon reaching there, HC Raju Palwe requested 4-5 public persons to join the investigation; however, none agreed and left the spot without disclosing their particulars. The secret informer pointed towards a jhuggi and thereafter left the spot. They entered the said jhuggi and, upon search, found a white plastic katta lying on the left side of the door, which on checking was found containing quarter bottles of illicit liquor. A lady present therein disclosed her name as Dhanpati @ Dhanni. The accused was handed over to W/Ct. Priyanka and the katta was checked by HC Raju Palwe, which was found containing quarter bottles of "Asli Santra Masaledar Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only" (180 ml each). One bottle was taken as sample and the remaining bottles were kept in the same katta; all the case property, including the sample, was sealed with the seal of "RP" using white cloth, and the seal State V. Dhanpati@Dhanni FIR No. 0115/2018 Page No. 4 of 15 GAURAV KATARIYA Digitally signed by GAURAV KATARIYA Date: 2026.04.06 17:09:55 +0530 after use was handed over to him. Form M-29 was filled at the spot and the seal was affixed thereon. The case property was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A bearing his signatures at point B. Thereafter, HC Raju Palwe prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR, pursuant to which he went to the police station, got the FIR registered, and returned to the spot along with ASI Ramesh Kumar, to whom the investigation was assigned. He handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO, who prepared the site plan Ex. PW1/C at the instance of HC Raju Palwe and recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Ex. PW2/A bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, the accused was bound down and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana.
This witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
06. W/Ct. Priyanka was examined as PW-3. She deposed that on 28.04.2018, while posted as W/Ct. at PS South Rohini, she was present at the police station when a secret informer came and informed HC Raju Palwe regarding sale of illicit liquor. On the directions of the SHO, a raiding party comprising HC Raju Palwe, Ct. Anil and herself was constituted, and they, along with the secret informer, proceeded to Indra J.J. Camp, Gaye Wali Gali, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi. They requested 3-4 public persons to join the investigation; however, none agreed and left the spot. Thereafter, they reached Jhuggi No. 465, where the secret informer pointed towards the jhuggi and informed that a lady was selling illicit liquor therein, and thereafter left the spot. The raiding team entered the said jhuggi, where a plastic katta was found lying on the floor on the left side near the entrance, and one lady was present inside, who disclosed her name as Dhanpati @ Dhanni. Upon checking the katta, it was found containing 50 quarter bottles of illicit liquor of "Asli Santra Masaledar Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only" (180 ml each). HC Raju Palwe took out State V. Dhanpati@Dhanni FIR No. 0115/2018 Page No. 5 of 15 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV KATARIYA KATARIYA Date:
2026.04.06 17:10:00 +0530 one quarter bottle as sample and the remaining bottles were kept back in the same katta; all the case property, including the sample, was sealed with the seal of "RP" using white cloth, and the seal after use was handed over to Ct. Anil. Form M-29 Ex. PW1/D was filled at the spot and the seal was affixed thereon. The sealed pullanda along with the sample bottle and Form M-29 was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A bearing her signatures at point C. Thereafter, HC Raju Palwe prepared the rukka Ex. PW1/B and handed it over to Ct. Anil for registration of FIR, who went to the police station and returned to the spot along with ASI Ramesh Maan, to whom the investigation was assigned. The IO prepared the site plan Ex. PW1/C at the instance of HC Raju Palwe, interrogated the accused, and recorded her disclosure statement Ex. PW2/A bearing her signatures at point B. This witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
07. IO/HC Babu Lal was examined as PW-4. He deposed that on 07.05.2019, while posted as Head Constable at PS South Rohini, further investi-
gation of the present case was marked to him by the concerned SHO. He col- lected the case file from MHC(R) and went through the same. On 30.07.2019, on his instructions, the samples were sent to the Excise Laboratory for chemical examination through MHC(M) vide RC No. 101/21/19, already exhibited as Ex. PF, and he recorded the statement of MHC(M) in this regard. He further de- posed that on 21.08.2019, he collected the result from the Excise Laboratory and placed the same on record. After completion of investigation, he prepared the charge sheet and filed it before the concerned Court.
This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
GAURAV State V. Dhanpati@Dhanni FIR No. 0115/2018 Page No. 6 of 15 KATARIYA Digitally signed by GAURAV KATARIYA Date: 2026.04.06 17:10:04 +0530
08. Accused has admitted certain documents during statement U/s 294 Cr.PC.
09. Prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 06.04.2026. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. on 06.04.2026, wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused, to which she refused the allegations and stated that she has been falsely implicated in this case and recovery of case property has been falsely implanted upon her. Further, the accused did not wish to lead defence evidence.
10. Final Arguments heard. Case file perused.
11. 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 alcohol without permit and submitted that accused be convicted of the offence charged.
12. 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 planted upon her. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel that non joinder of public witness despite availability casts 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.
Digitally signed by State V. Dhanpati@Dhanni FIR No. 0115/2018 Page No. 7 of 15 GAURAV GAURAV KATARIYA KATARIYA Date:
2026.04.06 17:10:07 +0530
13. I have heard the rival submissions and have also carefully gone through the entire material available on record and evidence led on behalf of the prosecution.
14. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of the offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution.
15. It is apposite to mention that sub section (1) of section 52 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 enunciates that in case of prosecution u/s 33, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the accused 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. Relevant extract of the said provision is reproduced:
"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) Where any animal, vessel, cart or other vehicle is used in the commission of an offence under this Act, and is liable to confiscation, the owner thereof shall be deemed to be guilty of such offence and such owner shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly, unless he satisfies the court State V. Dhanpati@Dhanni FIR No. 0115/2018 Page No. 8 of 15 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV KATARIYA KATARIYA Date:
2026.04.06 17:10:11 +0530 that he had exercised due care in the prevention of the commission of such an offence."
16. But this presumption is rebuttable and accused can rebut the same by either referring to the prosecution's evidence or by adducing defence evidence. Also, it should be noted that 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 pre-requisite 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.
17. However, for the reasons mentioned hereinafter, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was found in possession of the alleged illicit liquor. Accordingly, no presumption as provided for under Section 52 of the Delhi Excise Act can be raised against the accused in the present case.
18. It is a well settled proposition that non-joining of public witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C also casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society. Same has not been done in the present case. This casts a doubt on the fairness of the investigation.
19. From the overall testimony of the witnesses, it appears that no sincere efforts, have been made to join the public persons in the investigation. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are police witness. Not even a single State V. Dhanpati@Dhanni FIR No. 0115/2018 Page No. 9 of 15 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV KATARIYA KATARIYA Date:
2026.04.06 17:10:14 +0530 public witness was examined by the prosecution nor joined in the investigation and no plausible reason could be put forward by the prosecution witnesses that for what reason they were unable to gather support from public or independent witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused. Reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri.L.J. 127.
20. The failure on the part of the police personnel could only suggest that they were not interested in joining the public persons in the police proceedings. Failure on the part of the police officials to make sincere effort to join public witnesses for the proceedings when they may be available creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution story. Reference can be taken from the decision of Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under;
"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."
State V. Dhanpati@Dhanni FIR No. 0115/2018 Page No. 10 of 15 GAURAV KATARIYA Digitally signed by GAURAV KATARIYA Date: 2026.04.06 17:10:19 +0530
21. In the instant case, the recovery was effected from the accused at the busy spot. Hence, it could not be said that the public witnesses were not present at the spot at the time of recovery. In fact, as per the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, public persons were present at the spot at the time of recovery. However, surprisingly, the prosecution witnesses did not explain the reason as to why public witnesses were not examined during the course of investigation. They only stated that the public persons refused to join the investigation. This reason given by the PWs is neither sufficient nor plausible. Neither the details of those public persons were brought on record nor any legal action was taken against those persons under relevant sections of law who had declined to assist the police in investigation. If the public persons were really present at the spot, then the police officials should have made endeavor to get them join the investigation. They should have issued notice asking them to join the investigation. On their refusal, necessary action as per law could have been taken against them. Therefore, it is clear that sincere efforts were not made to join independent witnesses despite their availability which causes a serious dent in the story of the prosecution and all these facts makes the alleged recovery very doubtful.
22. Further, the prosecution did not even bring on record necessary DD entries to prove departure/arrival of the police officials from/at the police station. 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 State V. Dhanpati@Dhanni FIR No. 0115/2018 Page No. 11 of 15 GAURAV KATARIYA Digitally signed by GAURAV KATARIYA Date: 2026.04.06 17:10:24 +0530 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."
23. 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 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 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."
24. In present case, the seal was neither handed over to an independent witness. No explanation has come on record as to why seal handing over memo State V. Dhanpati@Dhanni FIR No. 0115/2018 Page No. 12 of 15 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV KATARIYA KATARIYA Date:
2026.04.06 17:10:29 +0530 was not made or seal was not handed over to an independent witness. In these circumstances, the possibility of tampering of case property cannot be ruled out. Reliance is placed on Ramji Singh V/s State of Haryana 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 452, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held 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 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".
25. Therefore, in view of the above, this creates further doubts in the case of prosecution as to whether the case property allegedly recovered from the accused has not been tampered with.
26. Perusal of record shows that prosecution witnesses have deposed that FIR was registered after preparation of seizure memo and M-29 form, however, both the Seizure memo and M-29 form bear the FIR number beforehand. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the case property or number of the said FIR was inserted in the document after its registration. In both the situations, it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a good deal of doubt about the recovery of the case property in the manner alleged. That being so, benefit arising out of such a situation must necessarily go to the accused. Reference be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Giri Raj v. State, 83 (2000) DLT 201.
State V. Dhanpati@Dhanni FIR No. 0115/2018 Page No. 13 of 15 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV KATARIYA KATARIYA Date:
2026.04.06 17:10:32 +0530
27. It is pertinent to mention that PW-1, during his testimony, admitted that he did not remember the DD entry regarding his arrival and that no handing-over memo of the seal was prepared; that though three documents were stated to have been prepared at the spot, the site plan was not prepared at that time; and he further deposed that the distance between the police station and the place of incident was approximately 2.5 km, whereas PW-2 deposed the said distance to be around 1.5 km and PW-3 stated it to be about 1 km, thereby revealing a material contradiction regarding the distance between the police station and the place of occurrence.
28. PW-2, during his cross-examination, admitted that the place of incident was a thickly populated residential area and that public persons were passing through the spot; however, no legal notice was served upon them and no action was taken against those who refused to join the investigation. He further admitted that no handing-over memo of the seal was prepared and that the site plan does not reflect the presence of the accused in the jhuggi, and also stated that he did not know whether the IO had obtained any search warrant prior to entering the jhuggi after sunset.
29. PW-3, during his cross-examination, deposed that he did not record any separate departure or arrival DD entry and admitted that public persons were passing through the spot; however, no written notice was served upon them by the IO. He further admitted that no handing-over memo of the seal was prepared and that no videography or photography of the recovery proceedings was conducted, thereby casting doubt on the fairness of the investigation and adherence to procedural safeguards.
Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV KATARIYA State V. Dhanpati@Dhanni FIR No. 0115/2018 Page No. 14 of 15 KATARIYA Date:
2026.04.06 17:10:42 +0530
30. The contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses with respect to the sequence and timing of preparation of documents, the absence of relevant DD entries regarding departure and arrival, the omission in the site plan regarding the presence of the accused in the jhuggi, discrepancies regarding the distance between the police station and the place of occurrence, and the non- joining of independent public witnesses at a public place, cumulatively cast a serious doubt on the prosecution version. These lapses, coupled with non-com- pliance of procedural safeguards, render the alleged recovery doubtful, thereby entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.
31. It is true that evidence is to be weighed and not counted but in this case whatever evidence has been produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to fortify the edifice of the prosecution's case and the prosecution fails to prove all the links. In case where the prosecution has failed to prove all the links, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. As such the accused deserves acquittal in the present case.
32. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and findings, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused in the present case beyond reasonable doubt.
33. Hence, accused Dhanpati@Dhanni W/o Lt. Matadin is hereby acquitted for the offence u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act. Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV KATARIYA Date:
KATARIYA 2026.04.06 17:10:47 +0530 Dictated directly into the computer (Gaurav Katariya) and announced in the open Court, JMFC-07/North-West/Rohini On this 06th day of April, 2026 Delhi/06.04.2026 This judgment consists of 15 pages and all bears my signature.
State V. Dhanpati@Dhanni FIR No. 0115/2018 Page No. 15 of 15