Delhi District Court
Fir No: 65/03 vs Sanjeev Kumar on 2 January, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR NO: 65/03
PS: Dabri
U/s 61/1/14 Punjab Excise Act.
State V. Sanjeev Kumar
Date of institution of the case : 04.12.2003
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 02.01.2012
JUDGMENT
a) S. No. of the case : 787/1
b) Date of commission of offence : 06.02.2003
c) Name of the Complainant : Ct. Rajesh Kumar
No. 1272/SW, P.S. Dabri
New Delhi.
d) Name of accused and address : Sanjeev Kumar @ Bittoo
S/o Sh. Umesh Chand
R/o G-84, Palam Extn.,
Harijan Basti, New Delhi
2
e) Offence complained of : u/s 61/1/14 Excise Act.
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Acquitted
h) Date of such order : 02.01.2012.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION :-
1. The present case was registered against the accused Sanjeev Kumar on the complaint of Ct. Rajesh Kumar on the allegations that on 06.02.2003 when he along with Ct. Ved Parkash on was on patrolling duty, at about 6.15 pm, he saw the accused containing two plastic kattas at his head. On suspicion, he checked the same and found that katta were containing quarter bottles of illicit liquor without any permit or licence. At his complaint, present case was registered against the accused U/s 61/1/14 Punjab Excise Act. After completion of investigation, charge sheet filed against the accused.
3
2. After taking cognizance, accused was summoned for the offence u/s 61/1/14 Excise Act. Copy of the charge sheet supplied to the accused. Charge for the offence U/s 61/1/14 Excise Act framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution has filed list of eight witnesses but examined only three witnesses.
4. PW-1 Ct. Dayanand stated that on 14.02.2003, he deposited the sample of case property to the Excise Lab, ITO, which was sealed with the seal of MCJ vide RC number 386/21.
5. PW-2 HC Om Parkash stated that on 06.02.2003 at about 8.10 am, he received rukka through Ct. Ved Parkash, on the basis of which he recorded formal FIR, copy of the same is Ex. PW-2/A and endorsement on the rukka is Ex. PW-2/B. 4
6. PW-3 HC Rajesh stated that on 6.2.03 he was on patrolling at about 6.30 pm when reached at Riyan Beauty Parlour, at that time accused was seen with two plastic kattas containing three petties. Same were found containing 140 quarter bottles of illicit liquor. Information was given at PS. ASI Mahesh to whom the accused and case property were handed over to him. IO recorded his statement Ex.PW3/A. Case property was sealed with the seal of MCJ and seized vide memo Ex.PW3/B. IO prepared a tehrir Ex.PW3/C and got the case registered through Ct. Ved Parkash who was alongwith him. Accused was arrested and personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/D and PW3/E.
7. No other witness was examined by the prosecution and PE closed. The statement of the accused U/s 281CrPC recorded in which he stated that he does not wish to lead evidence in her defence and matter was fixed for final arguments.
8. I have heard the arguments of both the parties. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the case is totally proved against the accused and he be given maximum punishment. Ld. Counsel for the 5 accused stated that prosecution cannot prove any ingredients of the offence against accused. Accused is falsely implicated in the present case and is liable to be acquitted. I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record.
9. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubts. In the present case, there is no public person was joined in investigation by the IO. IO of the case is also not examined. Site plan of the place of occurrence is also not proved on record.
11. As per seizure memo Ex. PW-2/B, seal after use was handed over to Ct. Ved Parkash but the said seal witness was not examined. Case property produced before the court in unsealed condition and some of the bottles were also empty. MHCM concerned to whom the case property was deposited at Malkhana also not examined. Therefore, proper sealing and custody of case property becomes doubtful.
6
13. In this way, the chain of evidence against the accused is not completed. The criminal offence can not be established on the basis of probability. The prosecution miserably failed to make any nexus between accused and recovery of illicit liquor beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, the accused Balvinder Kumar stands acquitted of the offence u/s 61/1/14 Excise Act in case FIR No. 90/00, PS, Dabri. Bail bonds stands cancelled and surety stands discharged. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) Announced in the open court METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE on this 2nd day of Dec, 2011. DWARKA COURTS/DELHI 7 FIR No. 90/00 PS: Dabri U/s 61/1/14 Punjab Excise Act.
State V. Balvinder Kumar
02.12.2011
Present: APP for the State.
Accused is present with Ld. Counsel.
Final arguments heard today.
Vide separate judgment pronounced and dictated in the open court, accused Balvinder Kumar is acquitted for the offence u/s 61/1/14 Excise Act. Bail bond stands cancelled and surety stands discharged. Document, if any, of surety be returned. Endorsement, if any, be also cancelled. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DWARKA COURTS/DELHI