Delhi District Court
Case Of "Sadhu Singh vs State Of Punjab" 1997(3) Crime 55 By The ... on 17 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEPIKA SINGH,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-06, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURT
State v. Ranvir Malik
FIR No. 973/15
PS Uttam Nagar
U/s 33 of the Delhi Excise Act
JUDGMENT
Case No. : 69121/16
Date of Institution : 30.03.2016
Date of Commission of Offence : 31.07.2015
Name of the complainant : Ct. Parmod Kumar
Name & address of the accused : Ranvir Malik,
S/o Sh. Sohan Lal,
R/o D-92, J.J. Colony,
Shiv Vihar,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 33 of the Delhi Excise Act
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of announcing of judgment : 17.04.2018
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgment this court shall decide the present case under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009.
State v. Ranvir Malik U/s 33 of the Delhi Excise Act 1/9 FIR No. 973/15 PS Uttam Nagar
2. The briefly stated story of the prosecution is that on 31.07.2015, at about 8.20 pm near H.No. D-92, J.J. Colony, Shiv Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, accused was found in possession of one plastic katta containing 96 quarter bottles of liquor, which were seized without any permit or licence. Thus the accused is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009. FIR was lodged on the basis of rukka and investigation was carried out.
3. Charge sheet was filed against the accused in the court. Copy of charge-sheet and other relevant documents were supplied to the accused. Charge under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act was framed against the accused vide order dated 13.10.2016, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined three witnesses.
5. PW-1 HC Yadram deposed that on 31.07.2015, he was MHC(M). HC Manraj handed over him one plastic katta, two quarter sample bottles and form M-29 duly sealed with the seal of MR. He deposited the same in the malkhana vide entry no. 4431 in register no. 19. On 21.08.2015, he haded over two sample bottles, form M-29 duly sealed with the seal of MR to Ct. Indu vide RC No.109/21/15 for depositing the same at Excise Office. Photocopy of entry no.4431 of register no. 19 Ex.PW1/A and copy of RC is Ex.PW1/B. Witness was not cross examined by the accused despite grant of opportunity.
6. PW-2 HC Indu Panwar deposed that on 31.07.2015, he along with Ct. Pramod State v. Ranvir Malik U/s 33 of the Delhi Excise Act 2/9 FIR No. 973/15 PS Uttam Nagar were on patrolling in the area vide DD No.61A which is Ex.PW2/A. At about 8.00 pm, when they reached at Colonel Bhatiya Road, J.J. Colony, Shiv Vihar, Delhi, they saw that the accused present in the court that day and correctly identified by him, was coming form the bus stand and he was holding a katta. He was apprehended and found suspicious. Katta was checked and found containing quarter bottles of liquor. They informed the police station and after some time, HC Manraj came at the spot. They handed over the katta and accused to him. IO asked 4-5 public persons to join the proceedings but they refused without disclosing their names and addresses. Katta was checked and found containing 96 quarter bottles. Form M-29 was filled at the spot. Two sample bottles were taken out. Remaining quarter bottles were kept in the same katta. The sample bottle and katta sealed with the seal of MR. Seal was handed over to him after use. The katta was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B signed by him at point-A. IO recorded the statement of Ct. Pramod Kumar and prepared the rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Pramod for registration of FIR. He went to PS along with copy of rukka. After registration of FIR, he came at the spot along with copy of FIR and handed over the same to IO. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/C and his personal search was taken vide memo Ex.PW2/D signed by him at point-A. IO prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW2/E at his instance signed by him at point-A. On 21.08.2015, he was handed over two sample quarter bottles, Form M-29 duly State v. Ranvir Malik U/s 33 of the Delhi Excise Act 3/9 FIR No. 973/15 PS Uttam Nagar sealed with the seal of MR by MHC(M) vide RC No.109/21/15 for depositing the same at Excise Office. After deposing the same, he returned the copy of RC to MHC(M).
Thereafter, case property has not produced by MHC(M). He produced the order dated 18.01.2018 passed by K.P. Singh, Assistant commissioner Excise by which the case property has been destructed. The photocopy of order mark-X and taken on record. He produced one quarter bottle sealed with the Seal of RKS which was taken out at the time of destruction. Bottle is Ex.P-1 identified by the witness to be one the same recovered from the possession of the accused.
7. During cross examination, witness admitted that it was correct that the spot was residential. No resident was asked to join the proceeding. No notice was given to the person who refused to join the proceeding. No memo of handing over of seal was prepared. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot and no recovery was effected from the accused and he had signed on the memos while sitting in PS.
8. PW-3 Ct. Pramod Sharma deposed in his examination-in-chief on the same lines as PW-2 HC Indu Panwar.
9. During cross examination, witness admitted that it was correct that the spot was residential. No resident was aksed to join the proceeding. No notice was given to the person who refused to joint he proceeding. No memo of handing over of State v. Ranvir Malik U/s 33 of the Delhi Excise Act 4/9 FIR No. 973/15 PS Uttam Nagar seal was prepared. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot and no recovery was effected from the accused and he had signed on the memos while sitting in PS.
10. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed. Statement of accused was recorded wherein he denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence. No defence evidence was led by the accused.
11. I have heard the submissions addressed by the Learned APP for state and by the Learned Counsel for accused and carefully perused the record.
12. Learned Defence Counsel has submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case. No public person was joined in the investigation despite availability.
13. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Accused is entitled to the benefits of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal. It has been held in case of "Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab" 1997(3) Crime 55 by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court :-
State v. Ranvir Malik U/s 33 of the Delhi Excise Act 5/9 FIR No. 973/15 PS Uttam Nagar "In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 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."
14. Further, Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, provides as under:-
"22.49. Matters to be entered in Register No. II :- The following matters shall, amongst others, be entered :-
(c) 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. This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal.
Note :- The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained."
15. In the present case, the above said provision have not been complied with by prosecution. The relevant entries regarding the arrival and departure of the police official has not been proved on record. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to a case law reported as "Rattan Lal V/s State" 1987 (2) Crimes 29 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, State v. Ranvir Malik U/s 33 of the Delhi Excise Act 6/9 FIR No. 973/15 PS Uttam Nagar "If the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act the courts will have to approach their action with reservations. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if the provisions of law are not strictly complied with and the least that can be said is that it is so done with an oblique motive. This failure to bring on record, the DD entries creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on the part of the prosecution."
16. Also, no Public person has been made as a witness in the present case. Admittedly, the spot was a public area and public persons were present at the spot, however, no sincere efforts was made by the IO to persuade them to join the investigation. No notice was served upon the said witnesses. It has been held in "Roop Chand V/s The State of Haryana",1999 (1) C.L.R 69, by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court that:-
"It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the State v. Ranvir Malik U/s 33 of the Delhi Excise Act 7/9 FIR No. 973/15 PS Uttam Nagar public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that he witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful''.
17. Another lacuna in the prosecution case relates to seal. Prosecution case is that the case property was sealed by IO with the seal of MR and handed over to Ct. Indu Panwar. However, no handing over memo was prepared. Also, the seal was neither handed over to independent witness nor deposited in malkhana. No explanation has come on record as to why handing over memo was not made or seal was not handed over to an independent witness.
18. In view of the above discussion, court is of the considered opinion that story of the prosecution has become doubtful and the benefit of doubt certainly goes in favour of the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused. Accordingly, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, accused Ranvir Malik is acquitted for the charges punishable U/s 33 of the Delhi Excise Act levelled against him. State v. Ranvir Malik U/s 33 of the Delhi Excise Act 8/9 FIR No. 973/15 PS Uttam Nagar
19. As per section 437A Cr.P.C accused is admitted to bail on him furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of like amount.
20. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Announced in open court on 17.04.2018.
Certified that this judgment contains (Deepika Singh)
09 pages and each page bears MM-06, (West)
my signature. THC, Delhi
State v. Ranvir Malik U/s 33 of the Delhi Excise Act 9/9
FIR No. 973/15 PS Uttam Nagar