Delhi District Court
State vs Meenu on 6 March, 2025
THE COURT OF MS. SUKRITI SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04, WEST
ROOM NO. 268, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE
VERSUS
MEENU
CASE No. 7868/2021
FIR No. 174/2020
P.S. Khyala
U/S- 33/38 Delhi Excise Act,
2009
1. Date of commission of offence : 05.03.2020
2. Name of the Complainant : ASI Dharambir Yadav
3. Name of the accused,
and his parentage and residence: Meenu W/o Sh. Jony, R/o
H.No. M-224, Raghubir
Nagar, Khyala, Delhi
4. Date when judgment : 24.02.2025
was reserved
5. Date when Judgment : 06.03.2025
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. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu 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 05.03.2020
at about 07.30 PM at Chameli Park, Koora Khatta, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS - Khyala, accused Meenu was found in possession of one plastic sack containing 120 quarter bottles of 'Crazy Romeo Whisky for sale in Arunachal Pradesh (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 26.08.2021 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 26.08.2021. Copy of the chargesheet in compliance with Section 207 CrPC was supplied on 30.10.2021.
1.3. Charge for the offence U/s 33/38 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 was framed against the accused on 05.04.2022 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On 17.08.2022, proceedings u/s 294 CrPC were conducted wherein the accused admitted the Copy of FIR i.e. 174/2020 dated 05.03.2020, DD No.16 dated 05.03.2020, Chemical Examination report no.SCD018031 dated 17.11.2020.
FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 2
2. MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
2.1 The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined 05 witnesses in total.
S. Name of Documents Dates of Dates of
No. Prosecution Exhibited in examination-in- cross-
witnesses Evidence. chief. examination
PW-1 HC Narender (I) Site plan - 17.08.2022 17.08.2022
Ex.PW1/A
PW-2 HC Ashok Entry at serial 17.08.2022 17.08.2022
no.2027 -
Ex.PW2/A
(OSR)
PW-3 W/Ct. Suman (i) Seizure 19.09.2022 19.09.2022
memo -
Ex.PW3/A
(ii)
Disclosure
statement of
accused -
Ex.PW3/B
(iii) Case
property -
Ex.P1
PW-4 ASI Dharambir (i) 19.09.2022 19.09.2022
Yadav Confiscation
order,
destruction
order
FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 3
alongwith
one
photograph -
Ex.P3 (colly)
PW-5 ASI Gajraj NIL 08.11.2023 08.11.2023
PW-6 Ct. Rajesh NIL 22.02.2024 22.02.2024
2.2 PW-1 was HC Narender who deposed that on 05.03.2020, he was
posted at Police Post Ragubir Nagar, PS Khyala as HC and the investigation of the present case was entrusted to him after the registration of FIR and thereupon, he alongwith Ct. Rajesh went to the place of recovery i.e. Chameli Park nearby Kuda Khatta, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi. At the spot, HC Dharambir was already present alongwith W/Ct. Suman who had apprehended the present accused namely Meenu for having in her possession illicit liquor. At the spot, first IO HC Dharambir handed over to PW-1 the sealed case property alongwith the seal sample and seizure memo of the same with form M-29. At the spot, PW-1 prepared the site plan Ex.PW1/A. Accused was interrogated and her disclosure statement was recorded by him. Accused was served a notice u/s 41 A CrPC for her appearance before the Court. After completion of the aforementioned proceedings, PW-1 alongwith Ct. Rajesh and W/Ct. Suman returned at police post and therefrom, he went to PS Khyala where the case property was deposited with MHC(M). The statement of W/Ct. Suman, Ct. Rajesh and HC Dharambir were recorded by PW-1 u/s 161 CrPC. The further FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 4 investigation of the present case was handed over to HC Gajraj. The witness was duly cross examined by the defence.
2.3 PW- 2 was HC Ashok who deposed that he had brought the register no.19 and 21 qua the entry made by the then MHC(M) namely HC Randhir. As per record, on 05.03.2020, the recovered case property of the present case alongwith sealed samples were deposited by the IO HC Dharambir with MHC(M) and in this regard, an entry at serial no.2027 was made and further on 31.07.2020, the case property i.e. sealed sample was sent to Excise Lab vide RC No.108/21/20 and the said entry number registered was brought to the court. The result of the sealed sample was received and an entry in this regard was made against the abovesaid serial number. The said entry was exhibited. The witness was duly cross examined by the defence.
2.4 PW- 3 was W/Ct. Suman who deposed that on 05.03.2020, she was posted as constable at PS Khyala. On that day, HC Dharambir and Ct. Rajesh were at patrolling duty at beat no.8 PP Raghubir Nagar. At about 07.45 PM, she, on receiving DD No.16 went to the spot i.e. Chameli Park.
When they reached at the spot she saw one lady who was carrying one plastic katta with her. She asked the lady to keep the said katta on the ground and thereafter, on checking the said plastic katta/ bag the same was found containing illicit liquor quarter bottles. The said quarter bottles were taken out from the said katta and in total 120 quarter bottles of illicit liquor were recovered. Each quarter bottle was labeled with 'Crazy Romeo FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 5 Whisky for sale in Arunachal Pradesh only 180 ml'. Thereafter, HC Dharmbir asked the passersby to join the investigation but all of them left the spot after giving reasonable excuses. Due to paucity of time, no notice could be served to them. On inquiry, the name of the accused was revealed to be Meenu W/o Johnny. Thereafter, HC Dharambir took out one sample quarter bottle and kept the remaining 119 quarter bottles in the same plastic katta and tied the mouth of the katta with white cloth and sealed it with the seal of 'DY' and la belled it with serial no.1. The mouth of sample quarter bottle was also tied with the white cloth and sealed with the seal of 'DY' and labeled serial no.1. Seal after use was handed over to Ct. Rajesh. IO HC Dharambir prepared the form M-29 at the spot and seized the illicit quarter bottles and the sample vide seizure memo. Thereafter, HC Dharambir prepared the tehrir at the spot and handed over the same to Ct. Rajesh for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, further investigation was marked to HC Narender who alongwith Ct. Rajesh arrived at the spot i.e. Chameli Park near Kuda Khatta, Raghubir Nagar. After reaching the spot, PW-3 alongwith HC Dharambir handed over the seized case property and the accused namely Meenu to HC Narender. Second IO/ HC Narender recorded the disclosure statement of the accused and served notice u/s 41 A CrPC to the accused. HC Narender prepared the site plan at the instance of HC Dharambir. After completion of aforementioned proceedings, PW-3 alongwith Ct. Rajesh, HC Dharambir and HC Narender returned to Police Post Raghubir Nagar and from there, HC Narender alongwith Ct. Rajesh went to PS Khyala where HC Narender deposited the case property with the MHC(M) PS Khyala. HC Narender FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 6 recorded statement of PW-3 u/s 161 CrPC. The witness was duly cross examined by the defence.
2.5 PW-4 was ASI Dharambir Yadav who deposed that on 05.03.2020, he was posted as Head constable at PS Khyala. On that day, he alongwith Ct. Rajesh was on patrolling duty at beat no.8 PP Raghubir Nagar. At about 07.30 PM, when they reached near Sarvodaya Vidyalaya M Block, one secret informer told them that one lady was carrying illcit liquor in a plastic katta and can be caught red handed if raided now and that she is standing near Chameli Park, Kuda Khatta. Thereafter, PW-4 alongwith Ct. Rajesh went to the spot and they saw one lady carrying said plastic katta. They asked her to stop and on checking the same it was found containing illicit liquor quarter bottles. Thereafter, PW-4 informed the duty officer PP Raghubir Nagar and asked her to sent one W/ Ct at the spot. After some time, W/Ct. Suman arrived at the spot and she apprehended the said lady carrying katta and asked her to keep the said katta on the ground and on checking the said plastic katta it was found containing illicit liquor quarter bottles which were taken out from the said katta and in total 120 quarter bottles of illicits liquor were recovered. Each quarter bottle was labeled with 'Crazy Romeo Whisky for sale in Arunachal Pradesh only 180 ml'. Thereafter, PW-4 asked the passersby to join the investigation but all of them left the spot after giving the reasonable excuses. Due to paucity of time no notice could be served to them. On inquiry, the name of the accused was revealed to be Meenu W/o Johnny. Thereafter, PW-4 took out one sample quarter bottle and kept the remaining 119 quarter bottles in the FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 7 same plastic katta and tied the mouth of the katta with white cloth and sealed it with the seal of 'DY' and labeled it with serial no.1. The mouth of sample quarter bottle was also tied with the white cloth and sealed with the seal of 'DY' and labeled serial no.1A. Seal after use was handed over to Ct. Rajesh. PW-4 prepared the form M-29 at the spot and seized the illicit quarter bottles and the sample vide seizure memo. Thereafter, he prepared the tehrir at the spot and handed over the same to Ct. Rajesh for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, further investigation was marked to HC Narender who alongwith Ct. Rajesh arrived at the spot i.e. Chameli Park near Kuda Khatta, Raghubir Nagar. After reaching the spot, PW-4 alongwith W/Ct. Suman handed over the seized case property and the accused namely Meenu to HC Narender. Second IO/ HC Narender recorded the disclosure statement of the accused and served her notice u/s 41 A CrPC. HC Narender prepared the site plan at instance of PW-4. After completion of aforementioned proceedings, PW-4 alongwith Ct. Rajesh, W/ Ct. Suman and HC Narender returned to Police Post Raghubir Nagar and from there HC Narender alongwith Ct. Rajesh went to PS Khyala where HC Narender deposited the case property with the MHC(M) PS Khyala. HC Narender recorded statements of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC and we were discharged. The witness was duly cross examined by the defence.
2.6 PW-5 was ASI Gajraj who deposed that on 11.07.2020 he was posted as HC at PS Khyala and was on duty. On that day, the investigation of present case was marked to him by concerned SHO PS Khyala. On receiving the case file, the sample of the illicit liquor regarding the present FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 8 case was deposited by Ct. Rajesh in the Excise Lab, ITO, Delhi. On 05.12.2020, PW-5 obtained the result from the Excise Lab and thereafter he prepared the present chargesheet and the same was filled in the court. The witness was duly cross examined by the defence.
2.7 PW-6 was Ct. Rajesh who deposed that on 05.03.2020, he was posted at Police Post Raghubir Nagar, PS Khyala as constable. On that day, he alongwith IO/HC Dharamveer Yadav was on patrolling duty in the beat area 8. At around 07.30 pm the were standing near Sarvodya Vidyalaya M Block when a secret informer informed them that a lady is taking illicit liquor towards Chameli Park Kuda Khatta. Then secret informer left the spot. Then, they went to the above mentioned address and saw the above mentioned lady carrying illicit liquor. Thereafter IO asked her to stop and then informed about the matter in the Police Post Raghubir Nagar. Then, IO asked 3-4 public persons to join the investigation but they refused the same stating that they do not want to get involved in court/police matters and left the spot without disclosing their name and address. Due to paucity of time, no notice was served by IO to them. Thereafter, IO checked the said katta and it was found containing 120 quarter bottles bearing mark of 'Crazy Romeo whiskey 180 ml for sale in Arunchal Pradesh only'. Meanwhile W/Ct. Suman reached the spot. Thereafter, they asked the name and other particulars of the said lady and she disclosed her name to be Meenu. Out of bottles seized, one quarter bottle was taken out as sample and moored with the white cloth from its bottleneck and sealed with the seal of 'DY'. The rest of the quarter bottles were put in the same plastic FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 9 katta, moored with the white cloth and duly sealed with the seal of 'DY'. After sealing, the seal was handed over to PW-6. Form M-29 was prepared by PW-6 and the abovesaid liquor as well as sample were seized vide seizure memo. Thereafter, IO prepared the tehrir and the same was handed over to PW-6 for registration of FIR. PW-6 went to the police station and got the FIR registered. After registration of FIR, he handed over the tehrir and copy of FIR to second IO HC Narender and then went to the spot with him. First IO handed over the case property, accused and Form M-29 to him. Second IO prepared the site plan. Then IO interrogated the accused and recorded the disclosure statement of accused. Thereafter accused was served notice u/s 41A CrPC and was sent home. Then PW-6 alongwith IO took the case property to the police station and got it deposited in the malkhana. PW-6 deposited the sample of the case property at Excise Office ITO on 31/07/2020.
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 28.10.2024 wherein she denied the allegations and tendered explanation that she had been falsely implicated and nothing was recovered from her possession. She opted not to lead any DE in his defence.
FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 10
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. He submitted that no videography, photography, examination of any public witness was done despite the recovery being conducted in a thickly populated area. He argued thus that prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the accused person is entitled to be acquitted.
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 FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 11 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 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'.
FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 12 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, it is abundantly clear that the investigating authority has not made any 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, PW-3, PW-4 & PW-6 that the place where the accused was apprehended was a residential area and 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. Moreover, the witnesses could not state any departure entry regarding their patrolling which would have brought them to the spot of recovery. Further Ct. Suman stated that the checking of the katta happened after she reached the spot, which she also confirmed in her cross examination when she stated that accused had possession of the plastic katta when she reached the spot. However, ASI Dharambir and Ct. Rajesh stated that the katta had already been opened and checked before the arrival of Ct. Suman. No sufficient explanation was given regarding these contradictory stances or for not including any public witnesses to the recovery proceedings.
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 FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 13 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 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 FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 14 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 having escaped from lawful custody, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 15 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 testimony given by the prosecution witnesses. For instance, PW-3 stated in her examination in chief that 'when we reached the spot' however she had gone to the spot alone upon receipt of the relevant DD number. Moreover, she stated that she had been brought to the spot by Ct. Anil who left after dropping her, but he was never included as a prosecution witness in the present matter. Similarly, PW-4 claimed that he had left the spot after taking a lift from a public person on his motorcycle, but neither the identity of such person is disclosed nor has he been made a prosecution witness. Moreover, PW-4 & FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 16 PW-6 are stated to have left for patrolling together however in their respective examinations, PW-4 claimed that they were on patrolling on foot while PW-6 stated that they were patrolling on motorcycle. These differences were never resolved by the prosecution.
5.8 Additionally, the seizure memo in the present case is stated to have been made prior to preparation of tehrir and registration of FIR by all recovery recovery witnesses and PW-4 reiterated the same in his cross examination. However, the seizure memo bears complete particulars of the present case FIR at the top in similar ink. This raises doubt on the proceedings as the implication is that either the FIR was registered prior in time or the document in question was prepared later on at the police station. In both cases, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused persons.
5.9 Moreover as per prosecution evidence, the seal was handed over to PW Ct. Rajesh after seizure and sealing. PW-4 admitted in his cross examination that no seal handing over memo had appeared and there is no mention in the entirety of the prosecution evidence as to who the seal was given to after the conclusion of proceedings or when. No returning memo has been placed on record either. Tampering with the seal cannot be ruled out in the given background as the same remained with officials of the same police station if not the IO himself. No independent witness is 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 FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 17 comply with all procedural requirements and failure of the same shall work in the favour of the accused. Hence, the omission of PW-6 in depositing the seal with the malkhana or preparing the seal returning memo, discredits the prosecution evidence further.
5.10 Most importantly, the very existence of violation of the excise policy has been brought into question as only one quarter bottle among those seized was sent for chemical analysis and found to contain alcohol. The presence of alcohol in the remaining allegedly recovered liquor bottles has not been proved by the prosecution. Neither was the batch number of the remaining bottles noted to correlate them with the sample bottle. Now, since the State has only found one bottle containing 180 ml alcohol, allegedly recovered from the accused, an offence under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 cannot be said to have been made out, as the same falls within the maximum permissible limit specified under Rule 20 of the Delhi Excise Rules, 2010. No batch number of the remaining bottles corresponding to the sample has been noted to indicate similarity of contents, as admitted by PW-6 in his cross examination.
5.11 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 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, FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 18 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 Meenu W/o Sh. Jony, R/o H.No. M-224, Raghubir 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 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN SUKRITI Digitally signed by SUKRITI SINGH COURT ON 06.03.2025 SINGH Date: 2025.03.08 17:27:10 +0530 (SUKRITI SINGH) JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04/WEST/ TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI Containing 19 pages, all signed by the presiding officer Digitally signed SUKRITI by SUKRITI SINGH SINGH 17:27:18 Date: 2025.03.08 +0530 (SUKRITI SINGH) JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04/WEST/ TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 19