Delhi District Court
Ps: Dabri vs Beena Devi on 1 November, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR NO: 651/2000
PS: Dabri
U/s 61/1/14 Punjab Excise Act.
State V. Beena Devi
Date of institution of the case : 12.12.2000
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 01.11.2011
JUDGMENT
a) S. No. of the case : 202/2
b) Date of commission of offence : 24.07.2000
c) Name of the Complainant : HC Baljeet Singh
No. 284/SW
P.S. Dabri, New Delhi.
d) Name of accused and address : Smt. Beena Devi
W/o Jagdish
R/o RZ-C-245, Gali No. 11,
Madhu Vihar,
New Delhi.
e) Offence complained of : u/s 61/1/14 Excise Act.
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
2
g) Final order : Acquitted
h) Date of such order : 01.11.2011.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION :-
1. The present case was registered against the accused Beena Devi on the complaint of HC Baljeet Singh on the allegations that on 24.07.2000 at about 6.30 pm when he was on patrolling duty in Madhu Vihar, he received a secret information about the accused having illicit liquor in her possession. On checking, she was found in possession of 190 pouches of 200 ml each of sub standard liquor. At his complaint, the present case is registered against the accused and after completion of investigation, charge sheet filed.
2. After taking cognizance, accused was summoned for the offence u/s 61/1/14 Punjab 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 she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3
3. Prosecution has filed list of nine witnesses but examined only six witnesses.
4. PW-1 Lady Ct. Geeta stated that on 24.07.2000, on the instruction of duty officer, she went to Madhu Vihar, Ganda Nala, where she met with HC Baljeet, Ct. Arun Rai and Ct. Mahender. On receipt of secret information, at about 6.30 pm, they reached at DDA Flats, Madhu Vihar, where they saw the accused was sitting on the ground at DDA Park having a plastic katta containing illicit liquor. Accused was apprehended. On checking the bag, it was found containing 190 pouches of illicit liquor of Desi Madira Sharab brand. 10 pouches were taken out as sample. The case property and sample were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/A after sealing the same with the seal of BS. HC filled in form M-29 at the spot. Thereafter, he prepared the rukka and sent Ct. Arun Rai to PS for getting the FIR registered. Thereafter the investigation was entrusted to ASI Dilbagh Singh to whom said Ct. had handed over the copy of the FIR and rukka 4 at PS. He along with said Ct. came on the spot, where HC Baljeet was present, who handed over him accused, seizure memo, sealed case property and form M-29. He arrested the accused vide personal search and arrest memos Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-1/C. He also prepared the site plan. He also recorded her statement.
5. PW-2 Ct. Arun Rai deposed the identical version as stated by PW-1.
6. PW-3 HC Jai Bhagwan brought the register No. 19. As per the register, the case property of the present case along with the sample duly sealed with the seal of BS were deposited in the Malkhana on 24.07.2000. On 10.08.2000 the sample of this case was sent to CFSL vide RC No. 85/21 through Ct. Dinesh. The case property was not tampered within any manner till its remained in the Malkhana.
7. PW-4 HC Om Parkash stated that on 24.07.2000, he was posted as duty officer and on that day, he received rukka at about 7.45 5 PM by HC Baljeet Singh sent through Ct. Arun Rai on the basis of which he recorded FIR of the present case, carbon copy of which is Ex. PW- 4/A and endorsement on the rukka is Ex. PW-4/B.
8. PW-5 ASI Dilbagh Singh stated that on 24.07.2000, further investigation of the case was handed over to him by the DO. During the investigation, he reached the spot, where he met with HC Baljeet, Ct. Arun, Ct. Mahinder and Lady Ct. Geeta. HC Baljeet Singh handed over him the accused Beena, sealed case property, sample pullanda, form M- 29, seizure memo and site plan. He arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW-1/B. The personal search of the accused was conducted by lady Ct. Geeta vide memo Ex. PW-1/C. Statements of PWs were recorded. He collected the result from Excise Lab.
9. PW-6 HC Baljeet Singh stated that on 24.07.2000 he was on patrolling duty along with Ct. Arun and Ct. Mahinder. Further he stated same version as stated by PW-1. In addition, he stated that he prepared rukka Ex. PW-6/A and got the case registered. Further 6 investigation was handed over to ASI Dilbagh Singh and handed over the accused, spot, case property along with papers to ASI Dilbagh, who prepared the site plan Ex. PW-6/B at his instance.
10. No other witness was examined by the prosecution and PE closed. The statement of the accused U/s 281CrPC recorded in which she stated that she does not wish to lead evidence in her defence and matter was fixed for final arguments.
11. 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 she be given maximum punishment. Ld. Counsel for the accused stated that prosecution cannot prove any ingredients of the offence against accused. The initial investigation is conducted by the complainant himself. Statements of witnesses are contradictory. 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.
7
12. 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. The case was registered at the complaint of HC Baljeet Singh and the complainant had conducted the initial investigation of the case by himself which is not fair as per principles of natural justice. No satisfactory explanation is given by the initial IO/ complainant in this regard.
13. PW-6 HC Baljeet Singh stated that the IO ASI Dilbagh prepared the site plan at his instance. Perusal of site plan of the place of occurrence Ex. PW-6/B reveals that there is no name or signatures of HC Baljeet Singh as a witness. Personal search of accused Beena must be conducted by Lady police officer as per law. Whereas in personal search memo Ex. PW-1/C, it is not specifically mentioned that the alleged lady Ct. Geeta herself conducted the personal search of the accused as her name is mentioned as a witness of the memo. In her statement before the court, Lady ct. Geeta PW-1 stated that IO arrested 8 the accused vide personal search and arrest memo Ex. PW-1/B and PW-1/C and she no where stated in her statement that the personal search was practically conducted by herself. A thumb impression also appears on Ex. PW-1/C but it is not mentioned on this document that to whom the said thumb impression belongs.
14. PW-1 and PW-2 stated that IO HC Dilbagh Singh came at the spot with Ct. Arun Rai whereas when the said IO is examined as PW-5, he specifically stated that he reached at the spot alone. The FSL result describing that whether the samples were containing illicit liquor or not, not tendered into evidence by any prosecution witness. The person who took the sample from Malkhana to Excise Lab also not examined. PW-6 stated that the seal after use handed over to Ct. Mahinder but the said seal witness not examined. PW-2 stated that many persons from residential houses were asked to join the investigation by the IO but IO / PW-6 stated that he did not ask anybody from residential houses to join the investigation.
9
15. In this way, the above said discussion shows that chain of evidence against the accused is not completed. The allegations leveled against the accused by the prosecution are not proved beyond reasonable doubt because of the shortcomings in the prosecution evidence as discussed above, benefit of which goes to the accused as per the Principles of Criminal Justice. Hence, the accused Beena Devi stands acquitted of the offence u/s 61/1/14 Excise Act. 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 day of 1st Nov., 2011. DWARKA COURTS/DELHI 10 FIR No. 651/00 PS: Dabri U/s 61/1/14 Punjab Excise Act.
State V. Beena Devi
01.11.2011
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 Beena Devi 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