Delhi District Court
State vs Krishna on 1 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT KARAN SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-08, WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT02-018106-2021
CIS No. 11706/2021
State Vs. Krishna
FIR No. 456/21
PS. Paschim Vihar West
U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission of offence : 19.06.2021
2) The name of the complainant : Ct. Bhupender
3) The name & parentage of accused : Krishna W/o Lt. Kuldeep, R/o B-194, Camp no.4, Jawalapuri, Delhi.
4) Offence complained of : U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Acquitted
7) The date of such order : 01.04.2026
Date of Institution : 29.10.2021
Final Arguments heard on : 01.04.2026
Judgment reserved on : 01.04.2026
Judgment announced on : 01.04.2026
State Vs. Krishna FIR No. 456/21 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 1/10
JUDGMENT
1) The case of the prosecution against the accused is that on 19.06.2021 at
about 5.14 PM at Chhat Park, B Block, Camp No.4, Jwalapuri, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Paschim Vihar West accused was found in possession of illicit liquor as detailed in seizure memo Mark 'A' without any permit or licence.
2) After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused. The copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr. P.C. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused under Section 33/38 Delhi Excise Act to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3) In support of its version, prosecution has examined three witnesses. Accused admitted as per section 294 Cr.PC, the factum as to the FIR No. 456/21 Ex. A-1, certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.A2, Excise Result is Ex. A3, GD no. 79A is Ex. A4 & Statement of Ct. Ram Karan recorded U/s 161 of CrPC is Ex. A5. The documents were admitted and the concerned witnesses were dropped.
4) After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded separately wherein accused claimed to be innocent and denied the allegations against them. Accused opted not to lead any DE.
5) I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld Counsel for accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
6) The testimonies of prosecution witnesses are being touched upon, in brief, as follows:-
6.1) PW-1 Ct Bhupinder deposed that on 19.06.2021, PW1 was posted at PS Ranhola as Contable. On that day, PW1 alongwith W/Ct. Shugni was on for patrolling in the beat no. 03. At about 05:14 PM. When they reached B-Block State Vs. Krishna FIR No. 456/21 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 2/10 camp number 04, Jawala Puri Delhi and there near the wall of Chatt park, one lady were sitting alongwith one plastic sack and 2-3 persons were standing around her and after seeing us in uniform, she turned back towards another direction but they some how apprehanded her and upon inquiry she told her name Krishna. Upon checking the said plastic sack, PW1 found some illicit quarter bottles. PW1 informed the duty officer and after some time IO/ASI Jagdish reached the spot. IO asked some public persons to join the investigation but to no avail. IO checked the said plastic sack and found a total of 50 quarter bottles of the make of Satrangi Santra for selling in Haryana only (180 ml). IO took out one bottle as a sample and sealed it with the seal of JP. IO kept back the remaining bottle in the said plastic sack and sealed it with the seal of JP and the seal was handed over to PW1. IO filed up form M-29. IO seized the case property vide memo exhibited Ex. PW-1/A, which bearing my signature at point A. IO recorded his statement which is now Ex. PW-1/B bearing my signature at point Aand endorse it and prepared the tehrir and sent PW1 to the PS for getting the registration of FIR. PW1 went to the PS and got the FIR registered. After some time, PW1 came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and tehrir to IO. IO recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide memo exhibited as Ex. PW-1/C. IO served the notice u/s 41A Cr. PC to the accused and prepared site plan at his instance which is Ex. PW-1/D. Thereafter, they brought the case property to the PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana of the PS. 6.2) PW-2 W/Ct Shugni deposed that on 19.06.2021, PW2 was posted at PS Ranhola as Contable. On that day, PW2 alongwith Ct. Bhupinder was on for patrolling in the beat no. 03. At about 05:14 PM. When we reached B-Block camp number 04, Jawala Puri Delhi and there near the wall of Chatt park, one lady were sitting alongwith one plastic sack and 2-3 persons were standing around her and after seeing them in uniform, she turned back towards another State Vs. Krishna FIR No. 456/21 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 3/10 direction but they some how apprehanded her and upon inquiry she told her name Krishna. Upon checking the said plastic sack, they found some illicit quarter bottles. Ct. Bhupinder informed the duty officer and after some time IO/ASI Jagdish reached the spot. IO asked some public persons to join the investigation but to no avail. IO checked the said plastic sack and found a total of 50 quarter bottles of the make of Satrangi Santra for selling in Haryana only (180 ml). IO took out one bottle as a sample and sealed it with the seal of JP. IO kept back the remaining bottle in the said plastic sack and sealed it with the seal of JP and the seal was handed over to Ct. Bhupender.
IO filed up form M-29. IO seized the case property vide memo exhibited Ex. PW-1/A. IO recorded his statement and endorse it and prepared the tehrir and sent him to the PS for getting the registration of FIR. He went to the PS and got the FIR registered. After some time, he came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and tehrir to IO. IO recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide memo exhibited as Ex. PW-1/C. IO served the notice u/s 41A Cr. PC to the accused and prepared site plan at his instance which is Ex. PW-1/D. Thereafter, they brought the case property to the PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana of the PS. 6.3) PW3 ASI Jagdish deposed that on 19.06.2021, PW3 was posted at PS Ranhola as ASI. On that day, PW3 receiced one dd number 79 and went at the spot and met with Ct. Bhupinder and W/Ct. Shugni there and they handed over the custody of accused and illicit liquor for further course of investigation. PW3 asked some public persons to join the investigation but to no avail. PW3 checked the said plastic sack and found a total of 50 quarter bottles of the make of Satrangi Santra for selling in Haryana only (180 ml). PW3 took out one bottle as a sample and sealed it with the seal of JP. IO kept back the remaining bottle in the said plastic sack and sealed it with the seal of JP and the seal was handed over to Ct. Bhupender. PW3 filed up form M-29 State Vs. Krishna FIR No. 456/21 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 4/10 which is now Ex. PW-3/A bearing my signature at point A. PW3 seized the case property vide memo exhibited already Ex. PW-1/A, which bearing my signature at point C. PW3 recorded the statement of Ct. Bhuinder Ex. PW-1/B bearing my particular at point A and endorse it Ex. PW-3/B bearing my signature at point B and prepared the tehrir and sent him to the PS for getting the registration of FIR. He went to the PS and got the FIR registered. After some time, he came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and tehrir to PW3. PW3 recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide memo exhibited as already Ex. PW-1/C bearing my signature at point. IO served the notice u/s 41A Cr. PC which is now Ex. PW-3/C bearing my signature at point A to the accused and prepared site plan at my instance which is already Ex. PW-1/D bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter, they brought the case property to the PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana of the PS. PW3 sent the sample to the excise lab and after procuring the excise result prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the court.
7) It is the cardinal principle of Criminal Justice delivery system that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused person beyond reasonable doubts. No matter how weak the defence of accused is but, the golden rule of the Criminal Jurisprudence is that the case of the prosecution has to stand on its own leg.
8) Ld. counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the present case is a false one and is the example of high handedness of the police. He argued that the accused has been illegally framed in the present case and it is evident from the fact that the accused was allegedly apprehended from the public place and but there is no public witness to the proceedings. He argued that police officials conducted the entire proceedings and same is not trustworthy. Ld State Vs. Krishna FIR No. 456/21 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 5/10 APP for the State argued that the public persons did not join the proceedings despite requests.
9) The manner in which the inquiry, seizure and search etc. was stated to be conducted on the spot at the time of arrest of the accused and alleged recovery of liquor makes the prosecution version highly doubtful. It is evident from the testimony of PW-1 to PW-3 that accused was apprehended along with the alleged illicit liquor at public place but there is no public witness in the present case. Regarding the importance of joining independent witness during investigation in a case like the present one, reliance may be placed on the following case laws:-
In a case law reported as Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1999(2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), 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 State Vs. Krishna FIR No. 456/21 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 6/10 citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
10) The names of the persons to whom the request was made to join the investigation has nowhere mentioned. No written notice has been placed on record which must be given to the public persons. Merely deposing that public person refused to join the investigation is of no avail. 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 are fatal to the prosecution version which establishes the defence version that there is total false implication of the accused in the present case and that the recovery was planted upon the accused.
11) It appears that no efforts was made to hand over the seal after use to independent person. I am conscious of precedent laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Safiullah v. State, 1993 (1) RCR (Criminal) 622, 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."
Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court also held in Ramji Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 452, that "7. The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property."
12) No seal handing over memo is on record. The police official having the possession of the seal was posted in the same police station in the malkhana State Vs. Krishna FIR No. 456/21 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 7/10 of which the case property was lying. There was ample opportunity for tempering with case property. Hence, considering the legal position, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.
13) Besides all this, in the present case, the seizure memo of illicit liquor Ex.PW1/A bears the number of FIR. As per the rukka and testimony of witnesses, the seizure memo was prepared prior to registration of FIR. If that be so then how seizure memo bears the FIR number. Now, I consider the observation made by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Giri Raj v. State, 83 (2000) DLT 201. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the case property or number of the said FIR was inserted in the document after its registration. In both the situations, it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a good deal of doubt about the recovery of the case property in the manner alleged by the prosecution. That being so, the benefit arising out of such a situation must necessarily go to the accused.
14) Further the case property was sent for chemical examination on 13.07.2021 while the same was seized on 19.06.2021. The entire paper formalities were completed in 19.06.2021 only. When the entire codal formalities were completed on 19.06.2021 than the delay of 23 days in sending the exhibits for chemical examination is beyond comprehension. Again the police official having the possession of the seal was posted in the same police station where the case property was lying. There was ample opportunity for tampering with the case property and benefit of this laxity on the part of investigating officer should go to the accused.
15) Being guided by above-said case laws, it can be said that the search, seizure and recovery made by the above said police officials was in complete violation of the well established principles of law and the same can be said to State Vs. Krishna FIR No. 456/21 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 8/10 be illegal which create grave doubts on the prosecution's version of recovery of liquor from the possession of the accused from the spot and substantiates the defence version that the alleged recovery was planted upon the accused at the police station and that entire proceedings were recorded at the police station and not on the spot.
16) In the judgment titled as "S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P" reported as 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"...... In our view, the onus to proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution ......"
17) The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a State Vs. Krishna FIR No. 456/21 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 9/10 reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur reported as VIII(2007) SLT 454(SC).
18) In view of the aforesaid discussion, accused Krishna stands acquitted of charged offences U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANKIT KARAN Digitally signed by ANKIT KARAN
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2026.04.01 17:19:01 +0530
Announced in the open court (ANKIT KARAN SINGH)
on 01.04.2026 JMIC-08,West District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
State Vs. Krishna FIR No. 456/21 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 10/10