Delhi District Court
State vs Neelam on 22 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. KRITIKA JAIN, JMFC-03, SOUTH WEST
DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. : DLSW02-032002-2023
FIR No. : 452/2022
U/s : 33 Delhi Excise Act
P.S. : Bindapur
State v/s Neelam
a) Name & address of the :Ct. Dhola Ram Jat
complainant
b) Name & address of accused :Neelam
W/o Sh. Vijay
R/o V-11, Bhagwati Vihar,
Uttam Nagar, Bindapur,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
c) Date of Commission of : 12.06.2022
offence
d) Offence complained of : 33 Delhi Excise Act
e) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
f) Ld. APP for the State : Sh. Manish Kaushik
g) Final Order : Acquittal
h) Date of Institution : 27.07.2023
i) Judgment Pronounced on : 22.01.2026
JUDGMENT
Brief facts
1. The prosecution version in brief is that on 12.06.2022, at about 10:30 PM in front of House No. RZV-80, Sector A, Main Road, Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, accused Neelam was found to be in possession of 40 quarter bottles of ADS Fresh Motta Masaledar Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only 180 ml each without any permit or licence. Complainant/ informant Ct. Dhola Ram Jat reported the State v/s Neelam Page No. 1 of 15 FIR No. 452/2022 aforesaid incident to duty officer at PS Bindapur. An FIR bearing no. 452/2022 u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act was registered at PS Bindapur. Investigation of the case was handed over to Investigating Officer ASI Virender Singh Yadav.
Proceedings before the Court
2. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act was filed against the present accused, i.e., Neelam. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused was summoned to face trial.
3. On her appearance, a copy of charge sheet along with documents were supplied to the accused in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC'). On finding prima facie case against the accused, a charge under section 33 Delhi Excise Act was framed against her, to which she had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the trial, prosecution has examined the following witnesses:
(i) PW-1 W/Ct. Kavita had deposed that she was posted at PS Bindapur as W/Ct. On 13.06.2022, she alongwith IO HC Virender Singh reached at H. No. B-11, Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar where IO interrogated accused Neelam and recorded her disclosure statement while she was under her supervision. The disclosure statement is Ex.PW1/A bearing her signature at point A. IO arrested the accused Neelam vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/B bearing her signature at point A. Thereafter, State v/s Neelam Page No. 2 of 15 FIR No. 452/2022 they produced the accused Neelam before the Hon'ble Court after conducting her medical examination from where she was sent to JC. Accused was correctly identified by the witness. The said witness was cross- examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
(ii) PW-2 Ct. Dholaram had deposed that he was posted at PS Bindarpur as Ct. On 12.06.2022, he was on beat patrolling duty in the area of Sector A, Bhagwati Vihar and at about 10:30 PM, when he reached at main road, House no. RZV-80, Sector-A, Bhagwati Vihar, he saw that one lady was coming from front side and she kept one heavy white plastic katta on her head. Upon seeing him, she turned back and started walking in steady steps. Upon suspicious, he gave hint to stop her after walking with 10-12 steps and thereafter, she stopped.
Upon asking about the plastic katta, she got nervous and could not give any satisfactory reply of the same. He took off the plastic katta from her head and found that the same was containing of quarter bottles of illicit liquor. Upon inquiry, he came to know the details of the said lady as Neelam W/o Sh. Vijay, aged about 29 years old. He shared the said information to DO of PS through his mobile phone. IO HC Virender Singh alongwith W/Ct. Monika reached at the spot and he produced the accused alongwith recovered illicit liquor before them. Accused was under the supervision of W/Ct. Monika. IO asked 04-05 public passers persons to join the investigation but none of them agreed and State v/s Neelam Page No. 3 of 15 FIR No. 452/2022 left the place with their personal reason and without disclosing their names and addresses. IO checked the plastic katta and found 40 quarter bottles of ADS Fresh Motta Masaledar Desi Sharab, for sale in Haryana only, 180 ml each. IO took one quarter bottle as sample and put back the remaining quarter bottles into the plastic katta and tied with opening of plastic katta and sample with white cloth and sealed with seal of VS vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A bearing his signature at point A. IO filled M-29 form at the spot. IO recorded his statement Ex.PW2/B bearing his signature at point A. IO prepared tehrir and got the FIR registered through him. IO prepared site plan of the place of incident Ex.PW2/C bearing his signature at point A. IO released the accused after bound down. They shifted the case property to the PS and deposited alongwith form M-29 at malkhana of PS. He could identify the accused as well as the case property, if shown to him. Thereafter, Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that accused shall not dispute her identity and she shall not object recording of evidence in her absence. Thereafter, MHC(M) produced destruction order of case property is taken on record and Ex.P-1 (OSR) (Colly). MHC(M) also produced sample of case property, i.e., one quarter bottle of ADS Fresh Motta Masaledar Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only 180 ML. After seeing the same, witness correctly identified the case property which is Ex.P-2. The said witness State v/s Neelam Page No. 4 of 15 FIR No. 452/2022 was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
(iii) PW-3 W/Ct. Monika had deposed that she was posted at PS Bindapur as W/Ct. On 12.06.2022, upon receipt of DD no. 198A about recovery of illicit liquor, she alongwith IO HC Virender Singh reached at the spot, i.e., House no. RZV-80, Sector-A, Bhagwati Vihar and met with Ct. Dholaram who produced the accused Neelam alongwith recovered illicit liquor before them. Accused was under her supervision. IO asked 04-05 public passers persons to join the investigation but none agreed and left the place with their personal reason and without disclosing their names and addresses. IO checked the plastic katta and found 40 quarter bottle of ADS Fresh Motta Masaledar Desi Sharab, for sale in Haryana only, 180 ML each. IO took one quarter bottle as a sample and put back remaining quarter bottles into the plastic katta and tied with opening of plastic katta and sample with white cloth and sealed with seal of VS vide seizure memo already Ex.PW2/A bearing her signature at point B. IO filled M-29 form at the spot. IO prepared tehrir and got the FIR registered through Ct. Dholaram. IO released the accused after bound down. They shifted the case property to the PS and deposited alongwith form M-29 at malkhana of PS. She could identify the accused as well as the case property, if shown to her. Thereafter, Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that the accused shall not dispute her identity and she shall not object in State v/s Neelam Page No. 5 of 15 FIR No. 452/2022 recording of evidence in his absence. Thereafter, MHC(M) produced destruction order of case property is already placed on record and already Ex.P-1 (OSR) (Colly). MHC(M) also produced sample of case property, i.e., one quarter bottle of ADS Fresh Motta Masaledar Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only 180 ML. After seeing the same, witness correctly identified the case property which is already Ex.P-2. The said witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
(iv) PW-4 ASI Jagdish had deposed that on 13.06.2022, he was posted at PS Bindapur as HC. The case property was deposited in malkhana by HC Virender Singh. He was the malkhana In-charge. The sample was sealed with seal of VS. On that day, he had brought the copy of Register no. 19 & 21 which were collectively Mark X. On that day, he had also produced the copy of RC which was Mark Y. The sample was taken by him to Excise Lab on 08.08.2022 vide RC No. 282/21/22. No tampering was done while the case property was in his custody. The said witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
(v) PW-5 ASI Virendra Singh had deposed that he was posted at PS Bindapur as HC. Upon recovery of illicit liquor, vide DD no. 198A dt. 12.06.2022, he along with W/Ct. Monika reached at the spot and met with Ct. Dhola Ram to produced accused Neelam and recovered case property before him. He asked 3-4 public passers and made them request to join the State v/s Neelam Page No. 6 of 15 FIR No. 452/2022 investigation but none of them agreed and left the place with disclosing their personal reasons. No notice could be served to them. He checked the plastic katta and upon counting, he found 40 quarter bottles of ADS Fresh Motta Masaledar Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only 180 ml each. He took 01 quarter bottles as sample and put back remaining into the same plastic katta. He tied the sample as well as opening of plastic katta with piece of white cloth and sealed with seal of VS vide seizure memo already Ex.PW2/A and bearing his signature at point C. He filled M-29 form at the spot Ex.PW5/A. He recorded statement of Ct. Dhola Ram already Ex.PW2/B bearing his signature at point B. He prepared tehrir Ex.PW5/B bearing his signature at point A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Dhola Ram. He prepared site plan of place of incident already Ex.PW2/C bearing his signature at point B. He interrogated the accused and recorded her disclosure statement of accused Neelam while she was under
supervision of W/Ct. Kavita already Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. He arrested the accused Neelam vide memo already Ex.PW1/B bearing his signature at point B. He bound down the accused vide Pabandinama Ex.PW5/C bearing his signautre at point A. They shifted the case property at PS Bindapur and deposited at Malkhana along with relevant documents. After completion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet before the Hon'ble court. He State v/s Neelam Page No. 7 of 15 FIR No. 452/2022 could identify the accused person as well as the case property, if shown to him. Thereafter, Ld. Defence Counsel submits that accused shall not dispute her identity or objection in recording of evidences in her absence. The destruction of case property is already placed on record and already Ex.P-1 (OSR)(colly). Thereafter, MHC(M) produced the sample of case property, i.e., one quarter bottle of ADS Fresh Motta Masaledar Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only 180 ml. After seeing, witness correctly identified the case property. Same is already Ex.P-2. The said witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
5. Vide separate statement of the accused u/s 294 CrPC, she had admitted the genuineness of the FIR bearing no. 452/2022 without contents, GD No. 147A and GD no. 198A both of dated 12.06.2022 and Excise Control Laboratory. The above- said documents were exhibited as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-4. Accordingly, the concerned witnesses were dropped by the prosecution.
6. The prosecution evidence was closed and thereafter the statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was put to her, which she had denied to be correct and submitted that she was innocent and falsely implicated. The accused chose not to lead any evidence in her defence. It is argued by Sh. Manish Kaushik, Ld. APP for the State that it is clear from the statement of the complainant and other witnesses as well as the documents appearing on record that the accused State v/s Neelam Page No. 8 of 15 FIR No. 452/2022 was in possession of 40 quarters bottle of ADS Fresh Motta Masaledar Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only 180 ml each. He has thus submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and she be, therefore, held guilty and convicted for the above-said offence.
7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and since nothing incriminating has appeared against the accused, therefore, acquitted for the offence charged.
8. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel at length, perused the record, went through the relevant provisions of law and gave my thoughts to the matter.
Findings of the Court
9. It is a well settled principle of criminal law that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
10. The first argument of Ld. Counsel for the accused is that since no independent witness has been joined at the time of investigation, it is, therefore, difficult to believe the prosecution version as it creates a doubt on the veracity of the statement of police witnesses.
11. This court has given its thoughts to the above contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused. Perusal of the examination of State v/s Neelam Page No. 9 of 15 FIR No. 452/2022 PW-1 W/Ct. Kavita, PW-2 Ct. Dholaram, PW-3 W/Ct. Monika, PW-4 ASI Jagdish and PW-5 ASI Virendra Singh reveals that the IO had asked public persons to join the investigation, but none of them had agreed. Thus, it is not the case of the prosecution that no public person was present at or near the spot of recovery. However, it is equally true that no steps are shown to have been taken to note down the names and addresses of those persons. It is a well settled proposition of law that non-joining of public witness throws doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. Section 100 (4) of the CrPC also casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society. However, no public person has been joined by the IO in the present case. In a case titled as Nanak Chand Vs. State of Delhi, 1990 SCC OnLine Del 469, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"The recovery was from a street with houses on both sides and shops nearby. And, yet no witness from the public has been produced. Not that in every case the police officials are to be treated as unworthy of reliancebut their failure to join witnesses from the public especially when they are available at their elbow, may, as in the present case, cast doubt. They have again churned out a stereotyped version. Its rejection needs no Napoleon on the Bridge at Arcola.'' (Emphasis supplied)
12. In the present case also, non-joining any public person as a witness creates doubt on the case of the prosecution. Although, this Court is conscious of the fact that it is a well State v/s Neelam Page No. 10 of 15 FIR No. 452/2022 settled law that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non-joining of public witnesses as they keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable, however, in the present case, it is not only the absence of public witnesses which raises a doubt on the prosecution version but there are other circumstances too, as discussed in the later part of the judgment, which raise suspicion over the prosecution case.
13. Perusal of the record further reveals that there is a delay of about two months in sending the samples to the Excise Control Laboratory for examination. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled Rishi Dev @ Onkar Singh v State (Crl. A. No. 757/2000) decided on 01.05.2008 has observed that to prevent the possibility of tampering with the samples, it is desirable that the samples are sent to the CFSL at the earliest. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment runs as under:
"The sample that is kept in a police malkhana, under the seals of the police officers themselves, is still definitely under the control of those police officers. There is every possibility that the samples could be tampered and again re-sealed by the very same officers by again affixing their seals. It is to prevent this from happening that earlier the sample is sent for testing to the CFSL the better."
14. In the instant case, alleged recovery was made on 12.06.2022 yet the samples were sent to the Excise Control Laboratory for examination on 08.08.2022, i.e. after about two months. No explanation has been given by the IO for the said delay.
State v/s Neelam Page No. 11 of 15 FIR No. 452/2022 The possibility of tampering with the samples cannot be ruled out especially keeping in mind the fact that the seal after use was not handed over to an independent witness and remained in the possession of police only. Thus, it creates a doubt on the prosecution version.
15. Perusal of the tehrir prepared by ASI Virendra Singh reveals that he had first prepared the seizure memo of the case property Ex.PW2/A as well as Form M-29 and after that rukka was prepared and sent to the police station for registration of FIR and thereafter, present FIR was registered. It is, therefore, clear that the seizure memo of the illicit liquor and Form M-29 were prepared before the rukka was handed over to the police official for registration of the FIR. The FIR was thus, registered after the preparation of the seizure memo of the case property Ex.PW2/A as well as Form M-29 however, surprisingly, seizure memo of the case property Ex. PW2/A as well as Form M- 29 bear the FIR number and it is thus, amazing since the number of the FIR could have come to his knowledge only after a copy of the FIR was brought to the spot. The number of FIR in no circumstances could have been mentioned by PW-2 on seizure memo and Form M-29, which came into existence before registration of the FIR. However, as discussed above, seizure memo of the case property Ex.PW2/A as well as Form M- 29 bear the FIR number and case details. In this context, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in one of the case titled Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi Administration, 1987 SCC OnLine Del 290, has observed as under in paragraph 6:
State v/s Neelam Page No. 12 of 15 FIR No. 452/2022 "...Learned counsel for the State concedes that immediately after the arrest of the accused, his personal search was effected and the memo Ex. PW11/D was prepared. Thereafter, the sketch plan of the knife was prepared in the presence of the witnesses. After that, the ruqa EX. PW11/F was sent to the Police Station for the registration of the case on the basis of which the FIR, PW11/G was recorded. The F.I.R. is numbered as 36, a copy of which was sent to the I.O. after its registration. It comes to that the number of F.I.R. came to the knowledge of the I.O. after a copy of it was delivered to him at the spot by a constable. In the normal circumstances, the F.I.R. No. should not find mention in the recovery memo or the sketch plan which had come into existence before the registration of the case. However, from the perusal of the recovery memo, I find that the FIR is mentioned whereas the sketch plan does not show the number of the FIR. It is not explained as to how and under what circumstances the recovery memo came to bear the F.I.R. No. which had already come into existence before the registration of the case. These are few of the circumstances which create a doubt, in my mind, about the genuineness of the weapon of offence alleged to have been recovered from the accused." (Emphasis supplied)
16. In another case titled Mohd. Hashim v. State, 1999 SCC OnLine Del 859, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with an appeal under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has also observed about the discrepancy, i.e., appearance of FIR number on seizure memo and other documents before registration of FIR and it runs as under:
State v/s Neelam Page No. 13 of 15
FIR No. 452/2022
"... Surprisingly, the secret
information (Ex. PW7/A) received by the Sub-Inspector Narender Kumar Tyagi (PW-
7), the notice under Section 50 of the Act (Ex. PW5/A) alleged to have been served on the appellant, the seizure memo (Ex.
PW1/A) and the report submitted under State v. Om Prakash Section 57 of the Act (Ex. PW7/D) bear the number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B). The number of the FIR (Ex.
PW4/B) given on the top of the aforesaid documents is in the same ink and in the same handwriting, which clearly indicates that these documents were prepared at the same time. The prosecution has not offered any explanation as to under what circumstance number of the FIR (Ex.
PW4/B) had appeared on the top of the aforesaid documents, which were allegedly prepared on the spot. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the contraband or number of the said FIR was inserted in these documents 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 recovery of the contraband in the manner alleged by the prosecution." (Emphasis supplied)
17. Let this court now analyse the evidence appearing on record keeping in mind the above judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In the present case, PW-5, who had prepared the documents in question, has categorically mentioned in the tehrir which has been prepared by him that he had prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW2/A and Form M-29 before the tehrir was prepared. In such a scenario, it remains unexplained as to how the FIR No. and its details figure on the top of the documents Ex.PW2/A. This creates serious doubt on the prosecution version and alleged recovery of State v/s Neelam Page No. 14 of 15 FIR No. 452/2022 illicit liquor and it leads to only one conclusion that either the said document was prepared later on or that the FIR was registered earlier in point of time. In both the aforesaid eventualities, a reasonable doubt has been raised on the version of the prosecution.
18. Thus, in light of the above discussion which throws doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution version, this court is of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that a katta which contained illicit liquor was recovered from the possession of the accused. The accused Neelam is, therefore, acquitted of the offence u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act.
19. This judgment contains 15 pages and the same has been pronounced by the undersigned in open court today and each page bears my signatures.
20. Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of District Courts, Dwarka forthwith.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
TODAY, i.e., ON 22.01.2026 Digitally
signed by
KRITIKA
KRITIKA JAIN
JAIN Date:
2026.01.22
16:46:43
+0530
Kritika Jain
Judicial Magistrate First Class-03
South-West District/New Delhi
22.01.2026
State v/s Neelam Page No. 15 of 15
FIR No. 452/2022