Delhi District Court
State vs Rohit@Sunny Etc on 12 August, 2025
Page 1 of 13
IN THE COURT OF ASHISH KUMAR MEENA
JMFC-01, SAKET COURT (SOUTH) NEW DELHI.
FIR NO.: 413/2019
U/S: 33/52/52(2) DELHI EXCISE ACT
PS: FATEHPUR BERI
STATE
VS.
(1). ROHIT @ SUNNY, S/O SH. BALBIR SINGH,
R/o H. No.618, Baba Mohalla, Aya Nagar,
Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi.
(2). YOGENDER SINGH, S/O SH. BUDH RAM,
R/o H. No.63, Ghoda Mohalla, Aya Nagar,
Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi.
..... ACCUSED PERSONS
1. Sr. No. of the case : 4266/2020
2. The date of offence : 07.11.2019
3. The name of the complainant : HC Surender Singh
4. The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
5. The date of order : 12.08.2025
6. The final order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, Rohit @ Sunny ("Accused no.1") is facing trial for the allegations that on 07.11.2019, at about 04:15 p.m., at Shiva Hansa Chow, Aya Nagar, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS-Fatehpur Beri, accused no.1 was found Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 413/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Rohit @ Sunny MEENA Date:
2025.08.12 15:51:47 +0530 Page 2 of 13 carrying 672 quarter bottles of illicit liquor make Asli Santra Masaledar Deshi Sharab, 180 ml, for sale in Haryana in car bearing registration no. DL-7CF-1060 ("Offending vehicle"), without any licence or permit or pass, thereby accused no.1 has committed an offence punishable u/s 33/52 Delhi Excise Act.
2. It is also an allegation that Yogender Singh ("Accused no.2"), being owner of the offending vehicle, allowed co-accused Rohit @ Sunny to carry illicit liquor in his car. Thereby accused no.2 Yogender Singh has committed an offence punishable u/s 33/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act.
3. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO. Consequently, accused persons were summoned after taking cognizance of offence. The accused persons were charged u/s 33/52/52(2) of the Delhi Excise Act and accordingly, the charges were framed against the accused persons to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined total three witnesses. It is stated by the witnesses that HC Surender (PW-1) alongwith Ct. Vijendra (PW-2), on secret information, stopped the offending vehicle at the spot and recovered illicit liquor in fourteen cardboard boxes. Total 672 quarter bottles were recovered from the possession of the accused no.1 kept inside the offending vehicle. Thus, HC Surender seized the illicit liquor and offending vehicle. He got present FIR registered through Ct. Vijendra. After registration of FIR, IO/HC Manoj came to the spot and conducted the investigation. During the course of investigation, IO also collected the ownership proof Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 413/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Rohit @ Sunny KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2025.08.12
15:51:54
+0530
Page 3 of 13
of the offending vehicle. Thus, on completion of investigation, he filled the charge-sheet qua both the accused persons. The prosecution is also relying on seizure memo of illicit liquor (Ex.PW1/A), Seizure memo of offending vehicle (Ex.PW1/B), Seal handling over memo (Ex.PW1/C), Rukka (Ex.PW1/D), Disclosure statement (Ex.PW2/A), Case property (Ex.P1), Photographs (Ex.P2). The witnesses were duly cross-examined by the accused persons.
5. It is pertinent to mention that the accused persons have also admitted the genuineness of FIR, Certificate u/s 65B IEA, Road Certificate and Chemical Examination Report without admitting the content of the same. Prosecution evidence was thereafter closed.
6. On completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons were recorded u/s 281 Cr.P.C r/w 313 Cr.P.C, wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons, to which they stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case and all the exhibits are false and manipulated. Further, the accused persons did not wish to lead defence evidence.
7. Final arguments heard. Case file perused.
8. Short point for determination before this court is as under:-
"Whether on 07.11.2019, at about 04:15 p.m., at Shiva Hansa Chow, Aya Nagar, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS-Fatehpur Beri, accused no.1 was found carrying illicit liquor in car bearing Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2025.08.12
FIR No: 413/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Rohit @ Sunny 15:52:01
+0530
Page 4 of 13
registration no. DL-7CF-1060, without any licence or permit or pass, thereby accused no.1 has committed an offence punishable u/s 33/52 Delhi Excise Act"
"Whether Yogender Singh ("Accused no.2"), being owner of the above-mentioned car, allowed co- accused Rohit @ Sunny to carry illicit liquor in his car. Thereby accused no.2 has committed an offence punishable u/s 33/52"
9. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that the ocular and the documentary evidence on record has proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. APP for the state submitted that there is sufficient material available on record to convict the accused persons and hence prayed for conviction of accused persons as per the evidence produced by the prosecution witnesses.
10. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the accused persons are innocent and falsely implicated in the present matter. Ld. Counsel submitted that the Prosecution has failed to prove recovery made against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has pointed out the material contradiction made during the examination of prosecution witnesses. Furthermore, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons submitted that be accused persons are liable to the acquitted in the present case.
11. In the present case accused persons are charged under Section 33/52 of Delhi Excise Act. Before appreciating the Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 413/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Rohit @ Sunny KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2025.08.12 15:52:08 +0530 Page 5 of 13 evidence in hand, it is important to go through the relevant provision of the Act:-
Section 33. Penalty for unlawful import, export, transport, manufacture, possession, sale, etc. (1) Whoever, in contravention of provision 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 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 any liquor;
(f) sells any intoxicant, collects, possesses or buys any intoxicant beyond the prescribed quantity, Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 413/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Rohit @ Sunny MEENA Date:
2025.08.12 15:52:14 +0530 Page 6 of 13 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to one lath rupees.
12. It is also significant to note that Section 52 of Delhi Excise Act presumes that accused persons have committed the offence (u/s 33 of the act) for the possession of which accused persons are unable to account satisfactorily. However, this presumption can be rebutted if proved contrary. It is further to be noted that initial still lies with the prosecution to show that accused persons were found with illicit liquor without any licence. Section 52 of the Act lays down as follows:
Section 52. Presumption as to commission of offence in certain cases:
(1) In prosecution under section 33, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the accused person has committed the offence punishable under that section in respect of any intoxicant, still, utensil, implement or apparatus, for the possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily.
(2) XXXXXXX
13. In order to receive the benefit of Section 52 of the Act, the prosecution is duty bound to prove that the accused persons were found in the possession of illicit liquor. As per version of the prosecution, the same is proved by the recovery memo and testimony of the witnesses. However, the manner of conducting inquiry, seizure and search etc. on the spot at the time of Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 413/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Rohit @ Sunny MEENA Date:
2025.08.12 15:52:21 +0530 Page 7 of 13 detaining the accused persons were and alleged recovery of liquor in this case, makes the prosecution version highly doubtful as there are various material contradictions can be seen in statement of prosecution witnesses.
14. It is the case of prosecution that the complainant HC Surender and Ct. Vijendra apprehended the accused Rohit @ Sunny with offending vehicle carrying illicit liquor. Thereafter, HC Surender took out sample bottles from each cartons and sealed the remaining case property with the seal of "SS". He also seized the remaining case property vide Ex.PW1/A. He further seized the offending vehicle vide Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, he prepared the rukka vide Ex.PW1/D and got present FIR registered through Ct. Vijendra. Thereafter, the matter was marked to HC Manoj who came to the spot and further investigated the matter. It is to be noted that the IO/HC Manoj has not seen the case property as it was already sealed by the complainant HC Surender. This Court fails to understand as to why the case property was seized and sealed prior to registration of FIR. The prosecution has failed to explain the urgency in conducting the said process of sealing of case property. Perusal of Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B reveals that it bears the details of present FIR no. 413/2019, PS-Fatehpur Beri, whereas it is the admitted case of the prosecution that the FIR was registration after seizure of the case property. Thus, the possibility of framing the accused persons in false case cannot be ruled out. Such lapse proves to be fatal to the case of prosecution.
15. Interestingly, all the witnesses have stated that no photograph of the case property was taken at the time of recovery Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 413/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Rohit @ Sunny KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2025.08.12 15:52:27 +0530 Page 8 of 13 of case property. It is to be noted that the prosecution has placed one photograph vide Ex.P2 alleging that the case property was again sealed in the katta recovered from the possession of the accused. However, the prosecution has failed to show who is the author of Ex.P2, as all the witnesses have deposed that they have not taken any photographs of the case property. Further, the prosecution has failed to explain as to why the collective photographs of the case property was not taken prior to sealing of the case property In view of this court, the said lapse and contradiction in investigation proves to be fatal to the case of prosecution.
16. Further, it is deposed by all the witnesses that that they tried to join independent witnesses in the investigation but none of the joined citing personal reasons. As per site plan, the place of incident appears to be busy area and the said incident is stated to have taken place at around 04:15 PM. Further, it is evident from the testimony of the witnesses that accused persons were apprehended alongwith the alleged illicit liquor at public place, but still no public independent person was cited as a witness in this case. Though witnesses have stated in his testimony that some public persons were requested to join, but none of them agreed and it is not clear whether took any effort to give notice to passerby to join them as witnesses but witness did not disclose the names of any such witnesses. IO has also failed to show any effort to include public witnesses in order to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and inspire the confidence of this court.
17. Regarding the importance of joining independent witness during investigation in a case like the present one, reliance may Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 413/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Rohit @ Sunny KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2025.08.12
15:52:33
+0530
Page 9 of 13
be placed on Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1999(2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), wherein, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
18. Similarly, in Nanak Chand Vs. State of Delhi reported as DHC 1992 CRI LJ 55 it is observed as under:-
"That the recovery is proved by three police officials who have differed on who snatched the Kirpan from the petitioner and at what time. The recovery was from a street with houses on both sides and shops nearby. And, yet no witness from the public has been produced. Not that in every case the police officials are to be treated as unworthy of reliance but their failure to join witnesses from the public Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 413/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Rohit @ Sunny KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2025.08.12
15:52:39
+0530
Page 10 of 13
especially when they are available at their elbow, may, as in the present case, cast doubt. They have again churned out a stereotyped version. Its rejection needs no Napoleon on the Bridge at Arcola".
19. Also, in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1872, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"It therefore emerges that non-compliance of these provisions i.e. Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. would amount to an irregularity and the effect of the same on the main case depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course, in such a situation, the court has to consider whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused and also examine the evidence in respect of search in the light of the fact that these provisions have not been complied with and further consider whether the weight of evidence is in any manner affected because of the non-compliance. It is well-settled that the testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be an official but as a rule of caution and depending upon the circumstances of the case, the courts look for independent corroboration. This again depends on question whether the official has deliberately failed to comply with these provisions or failure was due to lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with these provisions." [Emphasis supplied] Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 413/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Rohit @ Sunny KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2025.08.12
15:52:47
+0530
Page 11 of 13
20. Considering the aforesaid observations made by the Higher Courts, the omissions / failure on the part of investigating agency to join independent public witnesses create reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and substantiates the defence version that there is false implication of the accused in the present case and that the recovery has been falsely planted upon the accused. Further, considering facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of ratio in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC, there was no lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the above- mentioned facts create serious doubt on the case of the prosecution.
21. Further, as per evidence on record, the seal after use was not given to any independent public person. Hence, considering the legal position, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused, as tampering with case property in such a scenario cannot be ruled out. The reliance is placed on the judgment of Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2007 (3) R.C.C. (Criminal) 452, wherein it is held that-
"7. The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property. It is well settled that till the case property is not dispatched to the forensic science laboratory, the seal should not be available to the prosecuting agency and in the absence of such a safeguard the possibility of seal, contraband and the samples being tampered with cannot be ruled out."
22. Similarly, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Safiullah v. State, Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 413/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Rohit @ Sunny KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
2025.08.12 15:52:55 +0530 Page 12 of 13 1993 (1) RCR (Criminal) 622, held that -
"10. The seals after use were kept by the police officials themselves. Therefore, the possibility of tampering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out. It was very essential for the prosecution to have established from stage to stage the fact that the sample was not tampered with. Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused."
23. Further, Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, provides that 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 shall be entered vide a separate entry and this entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personality by signature or seal. In the present case, all these departures or the arrival entries have not been proved on the record by the prosecution. In absence of such proof, the presence of the police officials at the spot cannot be believed. Reference can be made to on Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29.
24. Furthermore, it is to be noted that accused Yogender Singh has also been made accused in the present matter u/s 33/52 Delhi Excise Act. However, as noted above, the prosecution has failed to prove the authenticity of seizure memo of illicit liquor and offending vehicle. Since, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations qua accused Rohit @ Sunny, accused no.2 namely Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 413/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Rohit @ Sunny KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2025.08.12
15:53:01
+0530
Page 13 of 13
Yogender cannot be held liable u/s 33/52(2) Delhi Excise Act.
25. From the aforesaid discussion, it is very clear that the manner in which the inquiry, seizure and search etc. has been conducted on the spot at the time of alleged recovery of liquor, it makes the prosecution version highly doubtful. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
26. Hence, accused persons namely (1). Rohit @ Sunny, s/o Sh. Balbir Singh and (2). Yogender Singh, s/o Sh. Budh Ram stands acquitted for the offence punishable under section 33/52/52(2) of Delhi Excise Act, they have been charged with . Ordered accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.08.2025. IT IS CERTIFIED THAT THE PRESENT JUDGMENT RUNS INTO THIRTEEN PAGES AND EACH PAGE BEARS SIGNATURE OF THE UNDERSIGNED.
Digitally signedASHISH by ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2025.08.12 15:53:09 +0530 (ASHISH KUMAR MEENA) JMFC-01/SAKET COURT(SOUTH) NEW DELHI/12.08.2025 FIR No: 413/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Rohit @ Sunny