Delhi District Court
State vs Smt Ishwari on 18 December, 2007
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 1371/99
PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi
U/s 61 of Pb .Excise Act, 1914
IN THE COURT OF DR.SHAHABUDDIN METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE:COURT ROOM NO.105, ROHINI COURTS DELHI
State vs Smt Ishwari
FIR No : 1371/99
PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi
U/s 61 of Pb .Excise Act, 1914
JUDGMENT
A. SL. No. of the case : 57/00
B. Date of Institution in : 23.06.2000
the court
C. Date of commission of : 21.12.1999
offence
D. Name of the : HC Sukhbir Singh
complainant
E. Name of the accused , : Smt Ishwari W/o Sh. Ram
her parentage and Kumar @ Chhajju R/o E-
residence 7/482, Sultanpuri Delhi.
F. Offence complained of : U/s 61 of Punjab Excise
or proved Act, 1914
G. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
H. Final Order : Acquitted
I. Date on which : 18.12.2007
judgment reserved
J. Date of such judgment : 18.12.2007
Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 1371/99
PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi
U/s 61 of Pb .Excise Act, 1914
K) BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE
1) The main prosecution case against the accused is that on 21.12.1999 at about 6.35 PM at Jalebi Chowk Sultanpuri, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Sultanpuri Delhi, the accused was found in possession of one plastic bag containing 40 pouches of 200 ML of country-made illicit liquor without having any license / permit and in contravention of a Delhi Administration Notification in this regard. Hence, a chargesheet was filed against the accused after completion of entire investigation for the offence U/s 61 of Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (in short called as Punjab Ex. Act hereinafter).
2) Accused appeared in the court and she was supplied the copies of documents relied upon in the chargesheet as per mandate of section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( in short called as Cr.P.C hereinafter).
3) On 16.01.2001, a charge was framed against the accused for the offence U/s 61 of Punjab Ex.Act to which she did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
4) From the side of prosecution, PW1 ASI Jeet Singh, PW2 HC Sukhbir Singh and PW3 HC Baljeet Singh were examined and then remaining prosecution evidence (in short P/E) was Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 1371/99 PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 61 of Pb .Excise Act, 1914 closed.
5) On 26.10.2006, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which she denied the allegations against her as false and incorrect but she did not want to lead defence evidence.
6) Final arguments were heard today on 18.12.2007 from Ld. APP for State and from Ld. Defence Counsel Shri Vivek Kumar on behalf of accused .
7) The main submissions of Ld. APP for State were to the effect that on the basis of entire material on record, the case stands well proved against the accused for the offence U/s 61 of Punjab Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt and that she should be punished strictly as per law.
8) On the other hand, the main submissions of Ld. Defence counsel were to the effect that accused was falsely implicated in this case; that nothing was recovered from her possession; that she was called in the police station on a false excuse and then this false case was planted upon her; that no independent and reliable person of the locality was joined by investigating officer (in short I/O) during investigation nor Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 1371/99 PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 61 of Pb .Excise Act, 1914 produced for evidence during trial of this case; that there are several material contradictions in the depositions of witnesses examined in this case; that the case does not stand proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. On the basis of these submissions mainly, acquittal of the accused was prayed for.
9) I perused the entire judicial file minutely in view of the above mentioned rival submissions.
10) Before proceeding further on the merits of this case, I refer to the relevant provisions of section 61 of Punjab Excise Act for which the charge was framed against the accused in this matter.
11) The relevant portion of section 61 of Punjab Excise Act is to the following effect:-
"61.(1) Penalty for unlawful import, export, transport, manufacture, possession, etc. -- Whoever, in contravention of any section of this Act or of any rule, notification issued or given there-under or order made, or of any license, permit or pass granted under this Act.--
a) Imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses any (intoxicant); or
b) constructs or works any distillery or brewery;
or Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 1371/99 PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 61 of Pb .Excise Act, 1914
c) uses, keeps or has in his possession any materials, still, utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever, for the purpose o manufacturing any (intoxicant) other than tari:
shall be punishable for every such offence with imprisonment for a term which may be extend to (three years) [ and with fine upto two thousand rupees and if found in possession of a working still for the manufacture of any (intoxicant) shall be punishable with the minimum sentence of six months imprisonment and fine of two hundred rupees]."
12) Now turning to the evidence of the record, PW3 is simply a formal witness as he was posted at PS Sultanpuri Delhi as MHC(M) on 21.11.99 and HC Jeet Singh deposited the case property of this matter with him and he made entry of the same in Register No. 19 at S.No. 5140 of which copy is on record as Ex.PW3/A.
13) As regards the depositions of PW1 and PW2 respectively, they have deposed about various steps taken during investigation of this case. They have admitted in their cross examinations that public persons were present at the spot but they were not joined in the investigation despite the fact that alleged place of recovery was a very busy locality and surrounded with the residential area as well as DESU office at the spot from which no one was joined during the investigation by the IO. It is a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution. There are also several other material contradictions in the depositions of both Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 1371/99 PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 61 of Pb .Excise Act, 1914 these witnesses. Hence, the case does not stand proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused for the alleged offence.
14) In view of the above mentioned discussion and on the basis of entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution side has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 61 of Punjab Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is entitled to be acquitted for this offence. Accordingly, accused Smt Ishwari W/o Ram Kumar is hereby acquitted for the offence U/s 61 of Punjab Excise Act. Her bail bonds are discharged and her surety also discharged. Case property be destroyed / disposed of as per rules after expiry of period of appeal / revision, as the case may be. File be consigned to record room as per rules.
ANNOUNCED AND DICTATED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 18.12.2007 ( DR. SHAHABUDDIN ) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROHINI COURTS DELHI Contd....P/Next page