Delhi District Court
State vs Indira Devi on 22 January, 2026
CR Cases 6807/2021 State Vs. Indira Devi
IN THE COURT OF MR. CHATINDER SINGH, JMFC-04,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. : 77/2019
U/s : 33 The Delhi Excise Act, 2009
P.S. : Sangam Vihar
State Vs. Indira Devi
a) CNR No. of the Case : DLST020112952021
b) Name & address of the : Ct. Vikram Singh, Belt no.1530/SD,
complainant PS Sangam Vihar, South District, Delhi.
c) Name & address of : Smt. Indira Devi
Accused W/o Sh. Seeta Ram
R/o House no. H. No. D-2/13,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi
d) Date of Commission of : 05.03.2019
offence
e) Offence complained of : 33 The Delhi Excise Act, 2009
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
g) Final Order : Acquitted
FIR No. 77/2019
CR Cases 6807/2021 State Vs. Indira Devi
Date of Institution : 16.10.2020
Final arguments heard on : 08.01.2026
Judgment Pronounced on : 22.01.2026
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Vide this judgment the accused namely Indira Devi, W/o Sh.Seeta Ram is being acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 33 Delhi Excise Act, 2009 in this case FIR No.77/2019, police station Sangam Vihar by giving benefit of doubt for the reasons mentioned below.
CASE OF PROSECUTION
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution as unfolded by the police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C') is that on 05.03.2019 at about 7.20 PM in front of H. No.D-2/13, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of police station Sangam Vihar, the accused was apprehended by complainant/Ct. Vikram Singh upon suspicion while the complainant was on patrolling duty. As per the prosecution story the accused was apprehended in possession of 60 quarter bottles of illicit without any permit or license of National Capital Territory of Delhi in contravention of notification issued by Gov. of NCT of Delhi.
FIR No. 77/2019 CR Cases 6807/2021 State Vs. Indira Devi
COURT PROCEEDINGS
3. Upon completion of investigation, police report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was filed and the accused was consequently summoned vide order dated 16.10.2020.
4. The copies of the police report and annexed documents were supplied to the accused in due compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
CHARGE
5. Vide order dated 25.11.2021 passed by Ld. Predecessor Court, charge for the offence punishable under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act was framed against the accused to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
6. Vide order dated 25.11.2021, in compliance of the provisions of Section 294 Cr.P.C., the accused was called upon to admit/deny the FIR No.77/2019 Police Station Sangam Vihar, certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, DD number 44A dated 05.03.2019, excise lab report which she admitted and the same were accordingly exhibited as Ex. AD-1 to Ex. AD-3 respectively. In view of the admission made, the evidence of DO/ASI Vijay Pal, Sh. Brijender Singh, Dy. chemical examiner and Ms.Seema Mathur, Assistant Chemical Examiner was dispensed with, being admitted by the accused.
FIR No. 77/2019CR Cases 6807/2021 State Vs. Indira Devi EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
7. To prove its case, the prosecution in all examined four witnesses.
a. PW-1 HC Vikram Singh deposed that on 05.03.2019, he was posted as Constable at PS Sangam Vihar and he was on beat patrolling duty at beat no.1 and on that day, he reached at D Block, Gali No.2, Sangam Vihar New Delhi and he saw one lady present at the spot carrying one plastic katta on her head and coming towards him and after seeing him, she got flabbergasted and started walking in high speed. He further deposed that he stopped her and asked the contents of that katta. He further deposed that he checked the plastic Katta and found illicit liquor in the same and he informed the fact to duty officer. He further deposed that IO/HC Hansraj along with W/Ct. Latta reached the spot and he handed over the katta and the accused to IO/HC Hansraj. He further deposed that IO interrogated the accused and she revealed her name as Indira Devi and checked the katta and found containing 60 quarter bottles of illicit liquor having label Charlie Santra Desi Sharab for Sale in Haryana only. He further deposed that IO took out one quarter bottle for sample purpose and rest of the bottles were kept in the same plastic katta and sealed the case property with seal of SGV4SED. He further deposed that IO recorded his statement Ex.PW-1/A and prepared rukka and handed over it to him for registration of FIR and he got registered the FIR and returned to spot and handed over copy of FIR and original Rukka. He further deposed that IO seized the case property vide seizure memo Ex.
FIR No. 77/2019CR Cases 6807/2021 State Vs. Indira Devi PW1/B. He further deposed that accused was released after issuing notice u/s 41A CrPC Mark-Z. He further deposed that IO prepared site plan Ex. PW1/C and recorded disclosure statement of accused vide Ex. PW1/D and they came to the PS along with the case property and deposited the case property into Malkhana and IO also recorded his supplementary statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. PW-1 correctly identified the accused and case property Ex. A-1 to Ex.A3.
b. PW-2 W/Ct. Lata deposed that on 05.03.201, she was posted at PS Sangam Vihar as W/Ct. and received information regarding recovery of the illicit liquor from one lady at D-Block, Gali No.2, Sangam Vihar, ND. She further deposed that HC Vikram Singh was already present at the spot who had informed the DO and she alongwith IO/HC Hansraj went to the spot and HC Vikram handed over the accused and case property to IO. She further deposed that IO interrogated the accused and she revealed her name as Indira Devi and checked the katta and found containing 60 quarter bottles of illicit liquor having label Charlie Santra Desi Sharab for Sale in Haryana only. She further deposed that IO took out one quarter bottle for sample purpose and rest of the bottles were kept in the same plastic katta and sealed the case property with seal of SGV4SED. She further deposed that IO recorded statement of HC Vikram Singh Ex.PW-1/A and prepared rukka and handed over it to HC Vikram Singh for registration of FIR and he got registered the FIR and returned to spot and handed over copy of FIR and original Rukka. She further deposed that IO seized the case property vide seizure memo Ex.
FIR No. 77/2019CR Cases 6807/2021 State Vs. Indira Devi PW1/B. She further deposed that accused was released after issuing notice u/s 41A CrPC Mark-Z. She further deposed that IO prepared site plan Ex. PW1/C and recorded disclosure statement of accused vide Ex. PW1/D and they came to the PS along with the case property and deposited the case property into Malkhana and IO also recorded his supplementary statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. PW-2 correctly identified the accused and case property Ex. A-1 to Ex.A3.
c. PW-3 HC Ashwani deposed that on 26.04.2019, he was posted at PS Sangam Vihar as Constable and on that day, MHC(M) / CP HC Mantu Ram gave him sealed sample of illicit liquor vide RC No.96/21/19 for deposing the same in Excise offie, Vikas Bhawan, ITO and he deposited the same in sealed exhibits there and gave the receipt of the same to HC Mantu Ram. He further deposed that IO recorded his statement at PS and RC is Ex.PW3/A. d. PW-4 IO/ASI Hansraj deposed that on 05.03.2019, he was posted as HC at PS Sangam Vihar and on that day, he received information from the DO regarding the recovery of illicit liquor from one lady at D-Block, Gali No. 2, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi and he along with W/Ct. Lata came to the spot and thereafter Ct.Vikram Singh handed over the custody of said lady alongwith the case property to him. He further deposed that on enquiry the said lady revealed her name as Indira and checked the katta in which total 60 quarter bottles of illicit liquor having label of Charlie Santara Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only, 180 ml and IO took out one quarter bottle for sample purpose from the 60 quarter FIR No. 77/2019 CR Cases 6807/2021 State Vs. Indira Devi bottles and rest of the 59 quarter bottles were kept in one white katta and sealed the case property with the seal of SGV4SED. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of Ct. Vikram Singh Ex. PW-1/A and prepared the rukka Ex. PW-4/1 and handed over the same to Ct. Vikram and thereafter, Ct. Vikram went to the PS and got the FIR registered and came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him. He further deposed that he seized the case property vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/B and served a notice u/s 41A Ex.PW-4/2 and the accused was bound down. He further deposed that he prepared the site plan Ex. PW-1/C and recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Ex. PW-1/D. He further deposed that they all came back to the PS and deposited the case property in Malkhana and he had recorded the statement of relevant witnesses in the present matter and prepared the charge-sheet and submitted the same before the Ld. Court. PW-4 correctly identified the case property Ex.A1 to A3 as well as accused in the court.
e. Thereupon, on oral statement of Ld. APP for the State the PE was closed vide order dated 08.12.2025 and matter was fixed for statement of accused.
f. Specimen Chart for exhibited Documents:
Material Description of exhibit Proved by / attested by object No. 1 Statement of HC Vikram Singh PW-1 Ex.PW-1/A. FIR No. 77/2019 CR Cases 6807/2021 State Vs. Indira Devi 2 Seizure memo Ex.PW-1/B PW-1 3 Site plan Ex.PW-1/C PW-1 4 Disclosure statement of accused PW-1 Ex.PW-1/D 5 RC No.96/21/19 Ex.PW-3/A PW-1 6 Rukka Ex.PW-4/1 PW-3 7 Notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. PW-1 Ex.PW-4/2 g. Material object:-
Material Description of exhibit Proved by / attested by object No.
1. Seizure memo of illicit liquor PW-1 STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
8. In her examination recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. dated 08.01.2026, the defence of the accused was that of denial. She categorically stated that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She further stated that she was not present at the spot and no recovery has been effected from her. The accused did not lead any evidence in her defence.
ARGUMENTS
FIR No. 77/2019
CR Cases 6807/2021 State Vs. Indira Devi
9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State addressed pertinent arguments. He submitted that the accused as well as the case property have been correctly identified by the witnesses. He stated that link evidence is also available. He urged that the case has been proved beyond doubt against the accused and prayed for conviction of the accused.
10.On the other hand, Ms.Chandani, learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated by the police and nothing was recovered from her possession. She submitted that the absence of public witnesses to the alleged recovery is fatal to the case of the prosecution, inconsistency in timelines provided by the police officials and that the IO did not prepare any seal handover memo and thus prayed for acquittal of the accused.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
11.The record has been thoroughly and carefully perused. The respective submissions of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the accused have been considered.
Charge under Section 33 Delhi Excise Act
12.With respect to the charge under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, the case of the prosecution is that on the fateful day the accused was found in possession of illicit liquor without any permit or licence. In order to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt the recovery of illicit liquor from the possession of FIR No. 77/2019 CR Cases 6807/2021 State Vs. Indira Devi the accused.
Re: Absence of independent witnesses
13.Evidently, no public witness to the recovery of the liquor has been either cited in the list of witnesses or examined by the prosecution. The recovery is alleged to have been effected from a residential area. The spot of recovery as per the site plan Ex. PW-1/C was located on a main road and has several houses in the neighbour-hood. Further, as per the site plan, the spot of recovery was in front of D-Block, Gali No.2, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi which according to the site plan, is surrounded on all sides by commercial spaces and residential colony. The place of recovery and apprehension of the accused is, therefore, clearly located in an area where public persons would be readily available. The apprehension and recovery were allegedly made at about 7.20 PM in the month of March, wherein it cannot be said that there would have been no public persons present at the spot. Moreover, the PWs have also not denied the presence of public persons at the spot. Thus, at the place and time of the alleged recovery of illicit liquor and apprehension of the accused, public persons would in all likelihood have been present and available or have at least passed by the spot. It is not the case of the prosecution that no public person was present at or near the spot of arrest and recovery.
14. It is further pertinent to note that PW-1 to PW-4 in their cross-examination, stated that there were public persons nearby the place of incident and they had asked them to join the investigation but all of them refused. PWs FIR No. 77/2019 CR Cases 6807/2021 State Vs. Indira Devi admittedly had not given any notice to the said persons upon their refusal to join the investigation. PW-1 to PW-4 in their cross-examination stated that they did ask certain public persons to join the proceedings however public persons refused citing reasons. Further, PW-1 to PW-4 stated that no public witness came join the investigation. However, neither of them stated the description of the persons who had allegedly refused to join the investigation. Further, there is nothing on record to show that PW-1 to PW-4 had served any notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. upon the persons who refused to join the investigation. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that any serious effort was made by PW-1 to PW-4 to join public witnesses in the proceedings. From a perusal of the record, no serious effort for joining public witnesses appears to have been made. 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 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. Reliance is placed on paragraph 6 of the judgment in Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri.L.J. 127, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed as under:
" ... According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public witness in the case while according to Kalam Singh, no public person was present there. It hardly stands to reason that at a place like a bus stop near Subhas Bazar, there would be no person present at a crucial time like 07.30 p.m. when there is a lot of rush of commuters for FIR No. 77/2019 CR Cases 6807/2021 State Vs. Indira Devi boarding the buses to their respective destinations. Admittedly, there is no impediment in believing the version of the Police officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good foundation. At least one of them should deposed that they tried to contact the public witnesses or that they refused to join the investigation. Here is a case where no effort was made to join any public witness even though number of them were present. No plausible explanation from the side of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the independent witnesses in a case of serious nature like the present one. It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the Police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the I.O. should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused."
15.This Court is, however, conscious that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non-joining of public witnesses as public witnesses keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable, as has been held in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. However, in the present case, it is not only the absence of public witnesses which raises a doubt on the prosecution but there are other circumstances too, as discussed hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the prosecution version.
Re: Departure entry not proved FIR No. 77/2019 CR Cases 6807/2021 State Vs. Indira Devi
16.The present case rests entirely on the alleged recovery of case property, i.e. illicit liquor, from the possession of the accused at the relevant time by a single police official, who was on patrolling duty at the relevant time and place, as per the prosecution story. Police officials are under a statutory duty to mark their departure and arrival in the register kept in the police station for the 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 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."
17. Since public persons were not joined in the investigation, the departure entry of the aforesaid police official namely HC Vikram Singh, who was allegedly on patrolling duty at the relevant time and had apprehended the accused with case property, becomes a vital piece of evidence. No such daily diary entry regarding departure of PW-1 is, however, present on record.
FIR No. 77/2019CR Cases 6807/2021 State Vs. Indira Devi Despite of cross-examination of the witnesses qua the said departure entries by the witnesses the prosecution was not able to bring on record any proof of the said entries, and the same is indispensable as the present case rests solely on the alleged recovery made by the aforesaid police official.
18.As per prosecution case, HC Vikram Singh was in the area at the relevant time and after arrest of the accused with alleged property returned to the PS. The DD entries in register No II are neither showing departure nor arrival entries of the said official and the same could have been proved by the prosecution. However, the DD entries regarding return of the police officials have not been proved nor the DD number of the arrival entry has been brought on record. It needs to be appreciated that the said arrival entry of the police officials would have come in handy in establishing the timelines of the case and corroborating the same with the testimonies of the police witnesses, but for the reasons best known to the IO the same have not been placed on record. When the provisions of law are not strictly complied with the same can be said to be done with oblique motive and are to be seen with reservation as has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rattan Lal v State, 1987(2) Crimes29. In the instant case also, failure of prosecution to bring on record the aforesaid DD entry casts shadow on the prosecution case as whole case rests on the alleged recovery from the accused.
Re: Possibility of misuse of seal of the investigating officer
19.As per the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the sample of liquor and case property were sealed by the investigating officer with the seal of FIR No. 77/2019 CR Cases 6807/2021 State Vs. Indira Devi 'SGV4SED'. However, the PWs have not deposed qua the handing over of the said seals to any other witness or police official and no handing over memo regarding the same was prepared. The seal in the present case was not handed over to any independent witness nor was it deposited in the malkhana to assail the possibility of its misuse. Thus, the possibility that the case property may have been tampered with cannot be ruled out.
Re: Other infirmities in the prosecution case
20. It further needs to be appreciated that after preparing the rukka IO sent HC Vikram Singh for registration of FIR to the PS, however, admittedly seizure memo Ex. PW-1/A has been prepared by IO prior to sending the Constable to the PS for registration of FIR. It is, therefore, clear that the seizure memos of the liquor must have been prepared at the spot before the rukka was sent to the police station for registration of the FIR. A perusal of the seizure memo reveals that it contains the FIR details, thus raising a valid doubt in the mind of this court as to how it was made before the FIR was lodged and still contained the FIR details. Accordingly, it follows that the number of the FIR would have come to the knowledge of the investigating officer only after a copy of the FIR was brought to the spot by HC Vikram Singh. Thus, ordinarily, the FIR number should not find mention in the seizure memo, which came into existence before registration of the FIR. However, interestingly, the seizure memo Ex. PW-1/A bear the FIR number and case details in the same ink and the same handwriting in which the said documents are prepared. The same indicates that FIR number was mentioned FIR No. 77/2019 CR Cases 6807/2021 State Vs. Indira Devi on the said documents while preparing the same. Reliance here is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri. L.J. 127, wherein it was observed paragraph 5 as under:
"... 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. 36 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."
21.In paragraph 4 of Mohd. Hashim v. State, 1999 VI AD (Delhi) 569, the FIR No. 77/2019 CR Cases 6807/2021 State Vs. Indira Devi Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed:
"... 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 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."
22.In the instant case as well, no explanation has been furnished on record as to how the FIR number and case details have appeared on the seizure memos Ex. PW-1/A. The same leads one to only one inference that either the said documents were prepared later or that the FIR had been registered earlier in point of time or that the IO never joined the investigation at the spot and every part of the investigation was done by him while sitting at the PS as FIR No. 77/2019 CR Cases 6807/2021 State Vs. Indira Devi alleged by the defence. In both the aforesaid cases a dent is created and unexplained holes are left in the prosecution story, the benefit of which must accrue to the accused.
23. Furthermore, the testimony of PW-1 to PW-4 also reveals that there are several inconsistencies regarding the preparation of seal handover memo or return memo.
24. Another important aspect that needs to be appreciated is, no photography or videography of the accused with the case property has been made. Moreover, none of the witnesses other than PW-1 were able to tell the approximate time when HC Vikram Singh was sent to the PS for registration of FIR thus raising suspicion about their presence at the spot of recovery itself. Thus, raising sufficient questions regarding the nature and manner in which the investigation was carried out by the IO.
25.Furthermore, another important aspect that cannot be sidelined merely as an irregularity is that the recovery witness i.e. HC Vikram Singh was alone when he made a recovery from the possession of the female accused but no effort has been shown on record to join any public person or female individual before making a cursory search of the belongings of the accused.
CONCLUSION
26.The facts that no independent witness was cited or examined, daily diary entry regarding departure of PW-1 has not been proved, possibility of misuse of seal has not been ruled out and the appearance of FIR number and case FIR No. 77/2019 CR Cases 6807/2021 State Vs. Indira Devi particulars on the seizure memos has not been explained, when kept in juxtaposition to each other, cast a cloud of suspicion over the prosecution version. In view of the aforesaid, the possibility of false implication of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out.
27.It is trite in criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be allowed to the accused.
28.Thus, in view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the benefit of doubt ought to be granted to the accused, who is entitled to be exonerated of the charges against her in the present case. The accused Indira Devi is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act. Case property be confiscated to State as per rules.
29.File be consigned to record room.
Digitally
signed by
CHATINDER
CHATINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.22
16:23:13
Announced in the open Court +0530
today i.e. on 22nd January, 2026 (Chatinder Singh)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-04
South /Saket Court/New Delhi
FIR No. 77/2019