Delhi District Court
Fir No. 699/06 vs Harmeet Singh Etc on 11 February, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR, ADDITIONAL
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ( SOUTH WEST ) ,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 699/06
PS: Dwarka
U/s 61/1/14 Excise Act
& 468/471 IPC
State V. Harmeet Singh Etc.
Unique Case ID No. 02405R0857772007
Date of institution of the case : 31/07/2007
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 20/01/2014
JUDGMENT:
a) S. No. of the case : 08/13
b) Date of commission of offence : 11/08/2006
c) Name of the complainant : SI Manish Dev Mehta No. D950, DIU, SouthWest District, Dwarka, New Delhi.
d) Name of accused and address : 1. Harmeet Singh FIR No. 699/06 State V. Harmeet Singh Etc. Page 1 of 10 S/o Late Sh. Gurdeep Singh R/o A60, Chander Vihar, Nilothi Extn., Nangloi, New Delhi
2. Ganesh S/o Sh. Harnam R/o A1/23 D, Himgiri Enclave, Chander Vihar, Nilothi, Nangloi, New Delhi.
3. Jitender Kumar S/o Sh. Davinder Kumar R/o RZ154, BlockB, Arjun Park, Najafgarh, New Delhi
4. Pushkar Yadav S/o Basant Yadav Plot No. 8182, Nagali Dairy, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
5. Krishan Lal S/o Sh. Ram Dass R/o A72, Chander Vihar, Nilothi Extn., Nangloi, New Delhi FIR No. 699/06 State V. Harmeet Singh Etc. Page 2 of 10
e) Offence complained of : u/s 61/78/1/14 Excise Act & 468 IPC
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Acquitted
h) Date of such order : 11/02/2014 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION :
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 11/08/2006 at about 11:05 PM at Red light of Sector9, Dwarka, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Dwarka, accused Harmeet Singh and Ganesh were found in possession of 20 petties containing 50 quarter bottles each of Haryana No.1 Masaledar Desi Sharab of illicit liquor which they were carrying in Matiz car bearing No. DL 9CA 9330 without any permit or licence and accused Harmeet Singh also forged the number plate of Matiz car from DL 6CA 9330 to DL 9CA 9330 and this fact was well within the knowledge of accused FIR No. 699/06 State V. Harmeet Singh Etc. Page 3 of 10 Krishan Lal and on the very same date at Ochandi Border accused Jitender Kumar and Pushkar Yadav were also found in possession of 170 petties containing 48 quarters bottles each of Bonnie Scot Special Whisky which they contained in canter No. HR 63 7065 and all accused thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 61/78/1/14 Excise Act & 468/471 IPC.
2. Earlier, on the complaint of SI Manish Dev Mehta a case was registered by the police of Police Station Dwarka. After registration of the case, it was investigated and on completion of the investigation, present charge sheet was submitted in the court for trial of all accused.
3. Copies of the challan were supplied to all accused in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C.
Finding a primafacie case, charge for the offence u/s 61/1/14 Excise Act was framed against the accused Harmeet Singh, Ganesh, Jitender Kumar and Pushkar Yadav and charge for the offence u/s 468/471 IPC was also framed against the accused Harmeet Singh to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. FIR No. 699/06 State V. Harmeet Singh Etc. Page 4 of 10
Finding no primafacie case against the accused Krishan Lal, he was discharged in the present case.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that the present case qua accused Jitender Kumar and Pushkar Yadav was disposed of by way of pleabargaining vide orders dated 05/09/2012.
5. Prosecution was then called upon to substantiate its case by examining its witnesses. To do so, prosecution examined PW1 HC Aman Kumar, PW2 HC Murari Lal, PW3 Ct. Ashok Kumar, PW4 Insp. Rajmal Meena and PW5 HC Narender Singh.
6. Separate statements of the accused Harmeet Singh and Ganesh were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the allegations against them and rebutted the prosecution evidence against them and claimed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It was also stated that they does not want to led evidence in their defence.
FIR No. 699/06 State V. Harmeet Singh Etc. Page 5 of 10
7. This court heard the final arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for both accused and carefully perused the entire record including the testimonies on record.
8. PW1 in his testimony had deposed that on 12/08/2006, IO/SI M.D. Mehta deposited 20 sealed cartons of illicit liquor and samples, all were sealed with the seal of MD alongwith form M29 and one car bearing registration No. DL 9CA 9330. On the same day, HC Narender deposited 170 cartons of illicit liquor and samples, sealed with seal of MD alongwith form M29. One canter bearing registration No. HR 63 7065 was also deposited on that day. Personal search of the accused were also deposited. He made entry in register No. 19 at serial No. 1528. The samples were sent to the Excise Office in sealed condition through Ct. Murari Lal vide RC No. 45/21 on 28/08/2006 and returned him the copy of receipt of the same. He made entry to this effect also in register No. 19 at serial No. 1528. The vehicles were released on superdari by the order of the court and he also made entry to this effect in register No. 19. He did not tamper with the case property in any manner during it remained in his possession. FIR No. 699/06 State V. Harmeet Singh Etc. Page 6 of 10
PW2, PW3 and PW5 in their testimonies had deposed regarding apprehending the aforesaid accused with illicit liquor containing in the car No. DL 9CA 9330 and canter No. HR 63 7065 on the relevant time, date and place.
PW2, PW3 and PW5 were crossexamined by counsel for the accused Harmeet Singh and Ganesh.
PW4 in his testimony had deposed that on 16/01/2007, the case file of the present case was marked to him by the order of ACP, DIU SouthWest for further investigation. On 03/05/2007, he arrested the accused Krishan Lal, who was the owner of the Matiz Car. After the arrest, the accused was released on bail. Thereafter, he transferred and he deposited the case file with the Reader to ACP, DIU South West District on 14/05/2007.
9. In order to bring home conviction the prosecution has to show on record an unbroken chain of events leading to commission of actual offence. Further, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case in such a manner so as to bring it outside the pale of any FIR No. 699/06 State V. Harmeet Singh Etc. Page 7 of 10 reasonable doubt.
The prosecution in its list of witnesses had cited ten witnesses. The prosecution in support of its case had examined five witnesses.
PW2 in his testimony had deposed that no public person was present through out the time they remained at the spot. But PW3 in his testimony had deposed that "IO asked some passer by to join the investigation but all of them refused for the same. IO had not visited to any residential house for joining the investigation by the public persons". Testimonies of PW2 and PW3 are contradictory in respect of public persons. No reasonable explanation has been adduced on record by the prosecution for the same.
PW3 in his testimony had deposed that seal was handed back to the IO at the spot at about 1:30 AM. But PW5 in his testimony had deposed that he took the seal from Ct. Ashok in the PS at about 2:45 AM. Testimonies of PW3 and PW5 are contradictory in respect of place of handing over the seal and time. No reasonable explanation FIR No. 699/06 State V. Harmeet Singh Etc. Page 8 of 10 has been adduced on record by the prosecution for the same.
During the course of examination of PW2, the case property i.e. one carton was produced in unsealed condition and case property i.e. 19 cartons were produced in sealed condition but seals were not legible and all the bottles were semi filled and most of the bottles were without label. No reasonable explanation has been adduced on record by the prosecution for the same.
PW5 in his testimony had deposed that " the documents and memos related to the seizure of canter and arrest were prepared at the DIU office". No reasonable explanation has been adduced on record by PW5 as to why same were not prepared at the spot.
During the course of examination, the forged number plate of aforesaid car had not been produced in the court to prove the factum of forgery. No reasonable explanation has been adduced on record by the prosecution for the same.
It is the case of the prosecution that raiding party was FIR No. 699/06 State V. Harmeet Singh Etc. Page 9 of 10 constituted by SI Manish Dev Mehta. In the present case, SI Manish Dev Mehta had not been examined by the prosecution. No reasonable explanation has been adduced on record by the prosecution for the same.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has not been able to establish its case against the accused Harmeet Singh and Ganesh beyond reasonable doubt.
11. Accused Harmeet Singh is acquitted for the offence u/s 61/1/14 Excise Act & 468/471 IPC and accused Ganesh is acquitted for the offence u/s 61/1/14 Excise Act. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open (VIJAY SHANKAR)
court on 11/02/2014 Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
FIR No. 699/06 State V. Harmeet Singh Etc. Page 10 of 10