Delhi District Court
State vs Meena on 30 May, 2025
THE COURT OF MS. SUKRITI SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04, WEST
ROOM NO. 268, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE
VERSUS
MEENA
CASE No. 7334/2022
FIR No. 183/2021
P.S. Khyala
U/S- 33/38 Delhi Excise Act,
2009
1. Date of commission of offence : 12.03.2021
2. Name of the Complainant : Ct. Ravinder
3. Name of the accused,
and his parentage and residence: Meena W/o Sh. Sagar, R/o
H.No. RZ-171, Ravi Nagar,
Khyala, Delhi
4. Date when judgment : 08.04.2025
was reserved
5. Date when Judgment : 30.05.2025
was pronounced
6. Offence Complained of : Section 33/38 of Delhi
or proved Excise Act 2009
7. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final Judgment : Acquitted
FIR No.183/2021 State Vs Meena U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 1
1. BRIEF FACTUAL POSITION:-
1.1 The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 12.03.2021 at
about 08.25 PM at RZ-171 B, Ravi Nagar Extension, Khyala, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS - Khyala, accused Meena was found in possession of one plastic sack containing 106 quarter bottles of 'Race 7 Metro Liquor for sale in Haryana (180 ml)' without any license, permit or pass and in contravention of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009. Case property was seized and the present case was registered, starting the investigation in the present matter.
1.2. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed on 20.05.2022 indicting the accused for commission of the offence U/s 33/38 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009. Ld. Predecessor took cognizance and issued summons to the accused on the same day. Copy of the chargesheet in compliance with Section 207 CrPC was supplied to the accused.
1.3. Charge for the offence U/s 33/38 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 was framed against the accused on 17.10.2022 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On 17.10.2022, proceedings u/s 294 CrPC were also conducted wherein the accused admitted the copy of FIR i.e. 183/21 dated 12.03.2021, certificate u/s 65 B of IEA and Excise Result dated 27.10.2021.
2. MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
2.1 The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined 04 witnesses in total.
FIR No.183/2021 State Vs Meena U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 2 S. Name of Documents Dates of Dates of No. Prosecution Exhibited in examination-in- cross-
witnesses Evidence. chief. examination
PW-1 Ct. Ravinder (i) Seizure 30.05.2023 08.04.2024
memo -
Ex.PW1/A
(ii) Statement
of PW-1 -
Ex.PW1/B
(iii) Site plan
- Ex.PW1/C
(iv) Notice u/s
41 A CrPC -
Ex.PW1/D
(v) Disclosure
statement of
accused -
Ex.PW1/E
(vi) Case
property -
Ex.P1
(vii) Orders
alongwith
report dated
15.03.2024
and certificate
with
photograph
and copy of
record of
FIR No.183/2021 State Vs Meena U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 3
register no.19
& 21 - Ex.P2
(colly)
PW-2 HC Devender NIL 30.05.2023 06.08.2024
Kumar
PW-3 HC Ashok (i) Form M-29 05.03.2025 05.03.2025
Kumar - Ex.PW3/A
(ii) Tehrir -
Ex.PW3/B
PW-4 W/ Ct. Parul NIL 05.03.2025 05.03.2025
2.2 PW-1 was Ct. Ravinder who deposed that on 12.03.2021 he was
posted in PS Khyala as Constable and on that day, he alongwith Ct. Devender were on patrolling duty at Ravi Nagar, Beat no.2, Khyala, Delhi. On that day at about 08.30 PM, they saw one lady coming from the side of Ravi Nagar having in her possession one plastic sack and after seeing the police party, she was moving fast and she was apprehended as she was found suspicious. Katta was checked and it was found containing quarter bottles of illicit liquor. The lady disclosed her name as Meena and the said information was given to the police station, upon which IO HC Ashok came to the spot alongwith W/Ct. Parul. They handed over the accused and the plastic sack to the IO. IO requested 3-4 passersby to join the proceedings but no one agreed on personal grounds. The plastic sack recovered from the accused was checked and was found containing 106 quarter bottles of 'Race-7 Metro Liquor for sale in Haryana' only. IO separated one quarter bottle out of those 106 quarter bottles for sample purpose. The sample was given serial no.1A and remaining were FIR No.183/2021 State Vs Meena U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 4 kept back in the said plastic sack and sack was given serial no.1 and same were separately sealed with the seal of 'AK'. PW-1 did not remember to whom the seal was handed over after use. IO completed form M-29. The liquor so recovered was seized vide memo. Thereafter, IO recorded statement of PW-1 and prepared tehrir and sent PW-1 to police station for registration of the same. PW-1 got FIR no.183/2021 registered on the basis of tehrir. Thereafter, PW-1 returned to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. Thereafter, IO prepared site plan in the presence of PW-1. IO interrogated the accused and gave notice u/s 41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused and disclosure statement of accused was also recorded by the IO. The case property was deposited in malkhana. The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
2.3 PW- 2 was HC Devender who deposed that on 12.03.2021 he was posted in PS Khyala as Constable and on that day, he alongwith Ct. Ravinder were on patrolling duty at Ravi Nagar, Beat no.2, Khyala, Delhi. On that day at about 08.30 PM, they saw one lady coming from the side of Ravi Nagar having in her possession one plastic sack and after seeing the police party, she was moving fast and she was apprehended as she was found suspicious. Katta was checked and it was found containing quarter bottles of illicit liquor. The lady disclosed her name as Meena. The said information was given to the police station, upon which IO HC Ashok came to the spot alongwith W/Ct. Parul. They handed over the accused and the plastic sack to the IO. IO requested 4-5 passersby to join the proceedings but no one agreed on personal grounds. The plastic sack recovered from the accused was checked and was FIR No.183/2021 State Vs Meena U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 5 found containing 106 quarter bottles of 'Race-7 Metro Liquor for sale in Haryana only. IO separated one quarter bottle out of those 106 quarter bottles for sample purpose. The sample was given serial no.1A and remaining bottles were kept back in the said plastic sack and sack was given serial no.1 and same were separately sealed with the seal of 'AK'. PW-2 did not remember to whom the seal was handed over after use. IO completed Form M-29. The liquor so recovered was seized vide memo. Thereafter, IO recorded statement of Ct. Ravinder and on the basis of his statement, IO prepared tehrir and sent Ct. Ravinder to the police station for registration of FIR. Ct. Ravinder got FIR no.183/2021 registered on the basis of tehrir. Thereafter, Ct. Ravinder returned to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. Thereafter, IO prepared site plan. IO interrogated the accused and gave notice u/s 41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused and disclosure statement of accused was also recorded by the IO. The case property was deposited in malkhana. The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
2.4 PW-3 was HC Ashok Kumar who deposed that on 12.09.2021, he was posted at PS khyala as Head Constable. On that day, upon receiving DD No. 111A, PW-3 alongwith W/Ct. Parul had reached spot of the incident at Ravi Nagar, Beat No.2, Khyala where he met Ct Ravinder and Ct Devender, who produced accused namely Meena alongwith a plastic katta seized from her. Then, PW-3 asked 4-5 public persons to join the investigation but they refused the same and left the spot without disclosing their name and address. Due to paucity of time, no notice was served by PW-3 to them. Thereafter, PW-3 checked the said katta and it was found containing 106 quarter bottles FIR No.183/2021 State Vs Meena U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 6 of illicit liquor bearing mark of 'Race 7 metro liquor for sale in Haryana only. Out of them, one quarter bottle was taken out as sample and moored with the white cloth from its bottleneck and sealed with the seal of 'AK'. The rest of the quarter bottles were put in the same plastic katta moored with the white cloth and duly sealed with the seal of 'AK'. The said plastic katta was given serial no.1 and the sample quarter bottle was given serial no.1A. Form M-29 was prepared by PW-3 and the abovesaid liquor as well as sample were seized vide seizure memo. After sealing, the seal was handed over to Ct Ravinder. Thereafter, PW-3 recorded statement of Ct. Ravinder and then prepared the tehrir and the same was handed over to Ct. Ravinder for registration of FIR. He went to the police station and got the FIR registered. After registration of FIR, he returned to the spot with the copy of FIR and original tehrir. PW-3 prepared the site plan and recorded the disclosure statement of accused. Then PW-3 served notice u/s 41A to the accused and she was bound down. PW-3 had sent the samples to Excise Department and obtained the excise result from Vikas Bhawan and placed it on record. After completion of investigation, PW-3 filed the chargesheet in the concerned court. The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
2.5 PW-4 was W/Ct. Parul who deposed that on 12.09.2021, she was posted at PS Khyala as Constable. On that day, upon receiving DD No.111 A she alongwith IO/HC Ashok had reached the spot of the incident at Ravi Nagar, Beat No.2, Khyala where they met Ct Ravinder and Ct Devender who produced accused namely Meena alongwith a plastic katta seized from her. Then, IO asked 4-5 public persons to join the investigation but they refused FIR No.183/2021 State Vs Meena U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 7 the same and left the spot without disclosing their name and address. Due to paucity of time, no notice was served by IO them. Thereafter, IO checked the said katta and it was found containing 106 quarter bottles of illicit liquor bearing mark of 'Race 7 metro liquor for sale in Haryana' only. Out of them, one quarter bottle was taken out as sample and moored with the white cloth from its bottleneck and sealed with the seal of 'AK'. The rest of the quarter bottles were put in the same plastic katta moored with the white cloth and duly sealed with the seal of 'AK'. The said plastic katta was given serial no.1 and the sample quarter bottle was given serial no.1A. Form M-29 was prepared by IO and the abovesaid liquor as well as sample were seized vide seizure memo. After sealing, the seal was handed over to Ct Ravinder. Thereafter, IO recorded statement of Ct Ravinder and then IO prepared the tehrir and the same was handed over to Ct. Ravinder for registration of FIR. He went to the police station and got the FIR registered. After registration of FIR, he returned to the spot with the copy of FIR and original tehrir. IO prepared the site plan. Then IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused. Then IO had served notice u/s 41A to the accused and she was bound down. Statement of PW-4 u/s 161 CrPC was recorded by the IO. The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
3. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C :
3.1 After the prosecution evidence was closed, the entire incriminating evidence was put to accused person in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. and statement of accused was recorded separately on 20.03.2025 wherein she denied the allegations and tendered explanation that FIR No.183/2021 State Vs Meena U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 8 she had been falsely implicated and nothing was recovered from her possession. She opted not to lead any DE in her defence.
4. ARGUMENTS:
4.1 Ld. APP for the State has argued that the accused person was apprehended with the case property which was recovered from her and on a combined reading of prosecution witnesses' testimony, offence under section 33/38 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 stand proved beyond reasonable doubt, against the accused person.
4.2 On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused person has argued that there is no legally admissible evidence against the accused person and that the accused person has been falsely implicated in the present case.
5. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS ON MERITS:
5.1 In the present case, the accused person has been charged with the offence U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act, for being found in possession of illicit liquor without any licence, permit or pass, and in contravention of the notification issued by the Delhi Government.
5.2 Section 33 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 states that:
'whoever, in contravention of provisions of this Act or of any rule or order made or notification issued or of any licence, permit or pass, granted under this Act- (a) manufactures, imports, exports, transports or removes any intoxicant; (b) constructs or works any manufactory or warehouse; (c) bottles any liquor for purposes of FIR No.183/2021 State Vs Meena U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 9 sale; (d) uses, keeps or has in his possession any material, still, utensil, implement or apparatus, whatsoever, for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant other than toddy or tari; (e) possesses any material or film either with or without the government logo or logo of any State or wrapper or any other thing in which liquor can be packed or any apparatus or implement or machine for the purpose of packing liquor; (f) sells any intoxicant, collects, possesses or buys any intoxicant beyond the prescribed quantity, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years with fine, which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees which may extend to one lakh rupees'.
5.3 Section 38 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 states that:
'whoever has in his possession any liquor knowing the same to have been unlawfully imported, transported or manufactured or knowing the prescribed duty not to have been paid thereon, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and fine which may extend to one lakh rupees'.
5.4. From a combined reading of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses examined and the material placed on record in the final report, several doubts have been created over the factum of alleged recovery from the accused. To begin with, PW-1 and PW-2, who were on patrolling duty together did not recall the relevant DD entry regarding their patrolling, nor could they state the particulars of the vehicle on which they were patrolling.
It is also abundantly clear that the investigating authority has not made any FIR No.183/2021 State Vs Meena U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 10 effort to have any public witness join the proceedings at the time of recovery, arrest or completing other formalities. It is not the case of the prosecution that no public witnesses were available and it is stated by PW-1 that it was a public residential place and all the witnesses stated that public persons were asked to join the investigation, but no formal notice was served on them, nor their particulars were noted down by the IO.
5.5 When a statutory provision mandates that an independent witness has to be joined in the investigation, the IO is duty bound to comply with the same. Merely stating that the public persons refused to join the investigation is not sufficient to serve the purpose of the prosecuting agency, more so, when the IO failed to even record the names and details of such person, and failed to take any required steps in terms of provisions of Cr.P.C and IPC as noted below.
Section 100(4) Cr.P.C states that,"before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate, or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do" ....
Section 37 Cr.P.C. states that, "every person is bound to assist a Magistrate or police officer reasonably demanding his aid- (a) in the taking or preventing the escape of any other person whom such Magistrate or police Officer is authorized to arrest ; or (b) in the prevention of suppression of a breach of the peace; or (c) in the prevention of FIR No.183/2021 State Vs Meena U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 11 any injury attempted to be committed to any railway, canal, telegraph or public property ".
Section 42 Cr.P.C. states that, "when any person who, in the presence of the police officer, has committed or has been accused of committing a non-cognizable offence refuses, on demand of such officer, to give his name and residence, or gives a name or residence which such officer has reason to believe to be false, he may be arrested by such officer in order that his name or residence may be ascertained.
(2) When the true name and residence of such persons have been ascertained, he shall be released on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, to appear before a Magistrate, if so required; Provided that, if such person is not resident in India, the bond shall be secured by a surety or sureties resident in India.
(3) Should the true name and residence of such person not be ascertained within twenty-four hours from the time of arrest, or should he fail to execute the bond, or, if so required, to furnish sufficient sureties, he shall forthwith be forwarded to the nearest Magistrate having jurisdiction".
Section 187 IPC states that, "whoever, being bound by law to render or furnish assistance to any public servant in the execution of his public duty, intentionally omits to give such assistance, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such assistance be demanded of him by a public servant legally competent to make such demand for the purpose of executing any process lawfully issued by a Court of Justice, or of preventing the commission of an offence, or of suppressing a riot, or affray, or of apprehending a person charged with or guilty of an offence, or of FIR No.183/2021 State Vs Meena U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 12 having escaped from lawful custody, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both".
5.6 The importance of getting independent witnesses to join the investigation has been laid out by the superior courts in a catena of judgments. In Roop Chand Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1990 (1) CLR 69, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana observed that such explanations that public persons refused to join the proceedings are unreliable. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also noted in the case of Pradeep Narayana Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1995 SE 930 that failure of the police to get persons from the locality to join the investigation during search creates doubt about its fairness, benefit of which has to be given to the accused. In the present matter, hence, the chances of false implication and planted recovery, as alleged by the defence, cannot be ruled out.
5.7 Moreover, there are other discrepancies in the prosecution evidence. For instance, PW-2 and PW-4 stated in their cross-examination that the case property was taken to the police station in an e-rickshaw. The IO i.e. PW-3 on the other hand, stated that the case property was taken to the PS in his personal vehicle i.e. car make of Swift DeZire. PW-4 again contradicted PW-3 in this regard as she stated that she had gone to the spot with the IO i.e. PW-3 on a bike, and not a car. While PW-1 claimed that the seizure memo was prepared in one go but FIR number was put on the same after registration, the IO himself stated that no addition or alteration was made to FIR No.183/2021 State Vs Meena U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 13 the seizure memo after it was prepared which was admittedly before the registration of FIR. However, the seizure memo on record bears the particulars of the FIR in the same handwriting as rest of the documents, indicating that memo was made later in time and FIR was registered prior in time than stated. This raises several doubts over the integrity of the investigation and lends credence to the argument of the defence that recovery was planted and all the proceedings were conducted at the police station itself.
5.8 The defence has also pointed out the discrepancies regarding sanctity of seal on the case property. In their respective testimonies, PW-1 and PW-2 did not recall to whom the seal was handed over whereas PW-3 claimed that it was handed over to PW-3, however it was deposited in the malkhana along with the case property. All witness except PW-4 admitted that no seal handing over memo had been prepared and record shows that no such memo was ever prepared. Tampering with the seal cannot be ruled out in such a case as the same remained with officials of the same police station as the IO himself, if not the IO. No independent witness was examined with respect to the same and no photography or videography was done during recovery, sealing or seizure proceedings. In a case where only police witnesses are available, it becomes incumbent upon such officials to comply with all procedural requirements and failure of the same shall work in the favour of the accused.
5.9 The cardinal principle of law that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, remains the dictating factor. The standard of proof in criminal cases is not preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond FIR No.183/2021 State Vs Meena U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 14 all reasonable doubt. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that culpability cannot be established on surmises and conjectures but it should rest on cogent, reliable and clinching evidence, dispelling every doubt and bulwarking the fact that in all possibility, the offence must have been committed by the accused. In the present case it is apparent that the case of the prosecution suffers from several glaring loopholes and the possibility of planted or tampered recovery cannot be ruled out. Under the circumstances, it would not be legally viable to convict the accused merely on the basis of testimony of the police officials. Hence, accused Meena W/o Sh. Sagar, R/o H.No. RZ-171, Ravi Nagar, Khyala, Delhi is acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 33/38 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance Digitally signed ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN by SUKRITI SUKRITI SINGH SINGH Date:
COURT ON 30.05.2025 2025.05.30 17:14:41 +0530 (SUKRITI SINGH) JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04/WEST/ TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI Containing 15 pages, all signed by the presiding officer Digitally signed by SUKRITI SUKRITI SINGH Date:
SINGH 2025.05.30
17:14:46
+0530
(SUKRITI SINGH)
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-04/WEST/
TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI
FIR No.183/2021 State Vs Meena U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 15