Delhi District Court
State vs Devender Pratap Singh on 23 January, 2026
Page 1 of 19
IN THE COURT OF ASHISH KUMAR MEENA
JMFC-01, SAKET COURT (SOUTH) NEW DELHI.
FIR NO.: 445/2022
U/S: 33/52(2)/58 DELHI EXCISE ACT
PS: FATEHPUR BERI
STATE
VS.
(1). DEVENDER PRATAP SINGH, S/O SH. MARKANDE
SINGH,
R/o H. No.58, Near Shiv Mandir, Sultanpur Colony,
Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi.
(2). JAGBIR SINGH BHATTI, S/O SH. MUKHTIYAR
SINGH BHATTI,
R/o H. No.10/18, Dakshinpuri Extn., Ambedkar Nagar,
New Delhi.
..... ACCUSED PERSONS
1. Sr. No. of the case : 2931/2023
2. The date of offence : 06.11.2022
3. The name of the complainant : ASI Jagpal Singh
4. The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
5. The date of order : 23.01.2026
6. The final order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, Devender Pratap Singh ("Accused no.1") is facing trial for the allegations that on 06.11.2022, at about 10:55 Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
FIR No: 445/2022 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Devender Pratap Singh & Anr. 2026.01.23 16:24:39 +0530 Page 2 of 19 a.m., at in front of Gadaipur Police Post, Jonapur Mandi Road, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS-Fatehpur Beri, was found carrying illit liquor in vehicle bearing registration no. DL- 1RAA-4538 ("Offending vehicle"), without any licence or permit or pass, thereby accused no.1 has committed an offence punishable u/s 33/52/58 Delhi Excise Act.
2. It is also an allegation that Jagbir Singh Bhati ("Accused no.2"), being owner of the offending vehicle, allowed co-accused Devender Pratap Singh to carry illicit liquor in his vehicle. Thereby accused no.2 Jagbir Singh Bhati has committed an offence punishable u/s 33/52 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(2)/58 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. PW-1 ASI Jagpal has deposed that on 06.11.2022, he alongwith Constable Gurpreet, who was the motorcycle rider, was on beat patrolling duty in the area of Jonapur, New Delhi, on a government motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-1SAF-1449. During patrolling duty at about 10:50-10:55 AM, when they were present on Jonapur Mandi Road before Gadaipur Checkpost, an auto came at a high speed from behind and overtook them. While the said auto was passing, the complainant noticed some articles kept in a white plastic Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 445/2022 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Devender Pratap Singh & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.01.23 16:24:45 +0530 Page 3 of 19 katta on the back seat of the auto. On suspicion, the complainant asked Constable Gurpreet to stop the said auto. Thereafter, Constable Gurpreet accelerated the motorcycle and stopped the auto near Gadaipur Police Post by parking the motorcycle beside it. When the auto stopped, the auto driver alighted from the vehicle and started running. As the complainant was seated on the pillion seat, he also ran and apprehended the auto driver. Upon inquiry regarding his act of running and the contents of the auto, the driver could not give any satisfactory reply. Thereafter, the auto was checked and a total of five plastic kattas were found kept on the back seat of the auto. On opening the same, it was found that each katta contained two cartons of illicit liquor. Upon inquiry, the accused disclosed his name as Devender Pratap Singh, S/o Markandey Singh, R/o Sultanpur Colony. The offending auto was found bearing registration no. DL-1RAA- 4538. The complainant requested four to five public persons/passersby to join the investigation, however none agreed and left the spot after giving valid reasons. Due to paucity of time, notices could not be served upon them. Thereafter, all ten gatta petis were taken out from the plastic kattas and checked. Each gatta peti was found containing 24 half bottles of illicit liquor, thereby totaling 240 half bottles. All the bottles were having labels of "ADS Motta Masaledar Deshi Sharab, For Sale in Haryana Only, 375 ml". One sample bottle was taken out from one gatta peti and the remaining case property was put back into the respective gatta petis (23 bottles in one peti and 24 bottles in the remaining petis). All the case properties were sealed with the seal of "JP". Two gatta petis were kept in each plastic katta and the mouths of the plastic kattas were tied with white cloth. The plastic kattas were marked as Serial Nos. 1 to 5. The sample Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 445/2022 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Devender Pratap Singh & Anr. KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.01.23
16:24:49
+0530
Page 4 of 19
bottle was also sealed with the seal of "JP" and marked as Serial No. S-1. Form M-29 was filled at the spot vide Ex.PW1/A. The illicit liquor alongwith the sample bottle was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. The offending vehicle alongwith its key was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. After use, the seal was handed over to Constable Gurpreet vide seal handing over memo Ex.PW1/D. Thereafter, the complainant prepared the rukka vide Ex.PW1/E and handed over the same to Constable Gurpreet for registration of FIR. Constable Gurpreet left the spot and got the FIR registered. After registration of FIR, further investigation was marked to Head Constable Banshi Dhar. HC Banshi Dhar alongwith Constable Gurpreet came to the spot. The complainant handed over the custody of the accused, case property, and relevant documents to the Investigating Officer. The IO interrogated the accused and prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant vide Ex.PW1/F. Thereafter, the IO recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The complainant then left the spot for other official duties, leaving Constable Gurpreet at the spot. The witness was duly cross- examined by the accused persons.
5. PW-2 Ct. Gurpreet Singh has deposed that on 06.11.2022, he alongwith Head Constable Jagpal, who was the motorcycle rider, was on patrolling duty in the area of Jonapur, New Delhi, on a government motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-1SAF- 1449. During beat patrolling duty at about 10:50-10:55 AM, when they were present on Jonapur Mandi Road before Gadaipur Checkpost, an auto came at a high speed from behind and overtook them. While the said auto was passing, they noticed Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 445/2022 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Devender Pratap Singh & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.01.23 16:24:53 +0530 Page 5 of 19 some articles kept in a white plastic katta on the back seat of the auto. On suspicion, Head Constable Jagpal directed him to stop the said auto. Thereafter, he accelerated the motorcycle and stopped the auto near Gadaipur Police Post by parking the motorcycle beside it. When the auto stopped, the auto driver alighted from the vehicle and started running. Head Constable Jagpal, who was seated on the pillion seat, also chased and apprehended him. Upon inquiry by Head Constable Jagpal regarding his act of running and the contents of the auto, the driver could not give any satisfactory reply. Thereafter, the auto was checked and a total of five plastic kattas were found kept on the back seat of the auto. On opening the same, it was found that each katta contained two cartons of illicit liquor. Upon inquiry, the accused disclosed his name as Devender Pratap Singh, S/o Markandey Singh, R/o Sultanpur Colony. The offending auto was found bearing registration no. DL-1RAA-4538. The police officials requested four to five public persons/passersby to join the investigation, however none agreed and left the spot after giving valid reasons. Due to paucity of time, notices could not be served upon them. Thereafter, Head Constable Jagpal took out all ten gatta petis from the plastic kattas and checked the same. Each gatta peti was found containing 24 half bottles of illicit liquor, thereby totaling 240 half bottles. All the bottles were bearing the label "ADS Motta Masaledar Deshi Sharab, For Sale in Haryana Only, 375 ml". Head Constable Jagpal took one sample bottle from one gatta peti and the remaining case property was put back into the respective gatta petis (23 bottles in one peti and 24 bottles in the remaining petis). All the case properties were sealed with the seal of "JP". Two gatta petis were kept in each plastic katta and the mouths of the plastic kattas were tied with pieces of Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 445/2022 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Devender Pratap Singh & Anr. KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
2026.01.23 16:24:58 +0530 Page 6 of 19 white cloth. The plastic kattas were marked as Serial Nos. 1 to 5. The sample bottle was also sealed with the seal of "JP" and marked as Serial No. S-1. Head Constable Jagpal filled Form M- 29 at the spot. He seized the illicit liquor alongwith the sample bottle vide seizure Ex.PW1/B. He also seized the offending vehicle alongwith its key vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. After use, the seal was handed over to him vide seal handing over memo Ex.PW1/D. Thereafter, Head Constable Jagpal prepared the rukka vide Ex.PW1/E and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. He left the spot for the police station and got the FIR registered. After registration of FIR, further investigation of the case was marked to Head Constable Banshi Dhar.
Thereafter, he alongwith Head Constable Banshi Dhar returned to the spot. The custody of the accused, case property, and relevant documents was handed over to the Investigating Officer. The IO interrogated the accused and prepared the site plan. The IO prepared the seizure memo of documents vide Ex.PW2/A. The IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused Devender vide Ex.PW2/B. The IO arrested the accused vide Ex.PW2/C and conducted his personal search vide Ex.PW2/D. Thereafter, the police party left the spot alongwith the accused and case property for the police station. Subsequently, the IO recorded the statement of the witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The witness was duly cross-examined by the accused persons.
6. PW-3 HC Bansidhar has deposed that on 06.11.2022, after registration of the FIR, further investigation of the present case was marked to him. He received the original tehrir and copy of FIR from Constable Gurpreet and thereafter, he alongwith Constable Gurpreet proceeded to the spot i.e. near Gadaipur Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 445/2022 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Devender Pratap Singh & Anr. KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
2026.01.23 16:25:02 +0530 Page 7 of 19 Police Post, Jonapur, Mandi Road. At the spot, he met ASI Jagpal alongwith the accused and the case property. The witness inquired from ASI Jagpal about the incident and ASI Jagpal handed over the custody of the accused, case property, and other relevant documents to him. He then interrogated the accused, who disclosed his name as Devender Pratap Singh, S/o Markandey Singh. He prepared the site plan at the instance of ASI Jagpal vide Ex.PW1/F. He recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide Ex.PW2/B. He arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/C and conducted the personal search of the accused vide personal search memo Ex.PW2/D. He got the case property deposited in the malkhana vide relevant seizure memos. During investigation, he searched for the supplier and receiver of the illicit liquor alongwith the accused, however no clue could be found. The accused was sent for medical examination and thereafter produced before the Hon'ble Court, from where he was remanded to judicial custody. He recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On 25.11.2022, he got the sample bottle deposited in the Excise Laboratory through Constable Rajesh vide RC No. 167/21/22. Subsequently, he received the Excise Laboratory result and placed the same on record. During further investigation, the witness inquired about the registered owner of the auto bearing registration no. DL- 1RAA-4538 and came to know that the said auto was registered in the name of Jagbir Singh, S/o Mukhtyar Singh. He served notice upon Jagbir Singh to join the investigation vide Ex.PW3/A. Jagbir Singh joined the investigation and the witness recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW3/B. He served notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. upon Jagbir Singh vide Ex.PW3/C and bound him down vide memo Ex.PW3/D. He also Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 445/2022 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Devender Pratap Singh & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.01.23 16:25:05 +0530 Page 8 of 19 served notices to the Director of Rupayan Finance and Industrial Corporation Ltd. on different dates vide Ex.PW3/E. He received replies from Rupayan Finance Ltd. and placed the same on record. As per the reply, on 05.03.2022, Jagbir Singh had visited the office of the said company and Devender Pratap Singh was also present there. A transaction of sale and purchase had taken place between them; however, no NOC was issued by Rupayan Finance Ltd. and Industrial Corporation Ltd. The said reply is Ex.PW3/F. He again recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Jagbir Singh Bhatti again joined the investigation pursuant to notice issued to him for production of delivery slip and other relevant documents. He produced one Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in favour of Devender Pratap Singh, Form-29, Form-30 delivery receipt, and photocopies of Aadhaar Card and PAN Card of Devender Pratap Singh. He seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. After completion of investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and submitted the same before the concerned court. The witness was duly cross-examined by the accused persons.
7. It is pertinent to mention that the accused persons have also admitted the genuineness of FIR, Certificate u/s 65B IEA, Chemical Examination Report and Report of RTO pertaining to offending vehicle without admitting the content of the same. Prosecution evidence was thereafter closed.
8. 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 Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 445/2022 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Devender Pratap Singh & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.01.23 16:25:10 +0530 Page 9 of 19 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.
9. Short point for determination before this court is as under:-
"Whether on 06.11.2022, at about 10:55 a.m., at in front of Gadaipur Police Post, Jonapur Mandi Road, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS- Fatehpur Beri, was found carrying illit liquor in vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1RAA-4538 ("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"
"Whether Jagbir Singh Bhati ("Accused no.2"), being owner of the offending vehicle, allowed co- accused Devender Pratap Singh to carry illicit liquor in his vehicle. Thereby accused no.2 has committed an offence punishable u/s 33/52"
10. 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.
11. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused no.1 that no recovery was effected from possession of accused. It is submitted Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 445/2022 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Devender Pratap Singh & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.01.23 16:25:15 +0530 Page 10 of 19 by Ld. Counsel for accused no.2 that the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery. The Ld. Counsel for accused persons submitted that the accused persons are innocent and falsely implicated in the present matter. 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.
12. Final arguments heard. Case file perused.
13. In the present case accused persons are charged under Section 33/52 of Delhi Excise Act. Before appreciating the 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, Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 445/2022 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Devender Pratap Singh & Anr. KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.01.23
16:25:20
+0530
Page 11 of 19
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, 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.
14. 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, Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 445/2022 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Devender Pratap Singh & Anr. KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
2026.01.23 16:25:24 +0530 Page 12 of 19 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
15. 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 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.
16. It is the case of prosecution that the complainant/ASI Jagpal alongwith Ct. Gurpreet apprehended the accused no.1 Devender Pratap Singh with offending vehicle carrying illicit liquor. Thereafter, ASI Jagpal took out sample bottles from each cartons and sealed the remaining case property with the seal of "JP". Thereafter, he seized the case property and offending vehicle vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C. Thereafter, he got present FIR registered through Ct. Gurpreet. Thereafter, the matter was deputed to IO/HC Banshi Dhar. As discussed above, IO/HC Banshi Dhar has not seen the case property as the same were already sealed and seized by the complainant. This Court fails to understand as to why the Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 445/2022 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Devender Pratap Singh & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.01.23 16:25:29 +0530 Page 13 of 19 complainant/ASI Jagpal was in such hurry to seize and seal the case property prior to registration of FIR. It is an admitted position that the IO has only prepared site and conducted the investigation qua the owner of offending vehicle after registration of FIR. It is to be noted that the seizure memos are in printed formats, whereas, other documents including the complaint are prepared in the handwriting of police official. Thus, the chances of preparation of seizure memo at later stage cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, PW-1 ASI Jagpal (Complainant) has stated that there were no CCTV camera installed near the place of incident. Whereas, PW-2 Ct. Gurpreet Singh specifically deposed that the CCTV cameras were installed at the spot. The said contradiction also proves to be fatal to the case of prosecution. Further, such lapse in investigation proves to be fatal to the case of prosecution.
17. Interestingly, all the witnesses have stated that no photographs of the case properties were taken at the time of recovery of property by them. It is to be noted that the prosecution has placed Ex.P2 (colly) (photograph of alleged illicit liquor and offending vehicle) were tendered in evidence before this Court. It is to be noted that Ex.P2 (colly) alleges that the illicit liquor 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 said photographs, 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 Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
FIR No: 445/2022 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Devender Pratap Singh & Anr. MEENA 2026.01.23 16:25:34 +0530 Page 14 of 19 to the case of prosecution.
18. 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 10:55 AM. 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.
19. Regarding the importance of joining independent witness during investigation in a case like the present one, reliance may 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 Digitally signed by FIR No: 445/2022 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Devender Pratap Singh & Anr. ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
2026.01.23 16:25:39 +0530 Page 15 of 19 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".
20. 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 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".
21. 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 Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 445/2022 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Devender Pratap Singh & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.01.23 16:25:44 +0530 Page 16 of 19 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]
22. 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 Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 445/2022 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Devender Pratap Singh & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.01.23 16:25:48 +0530 Page 17 of 19 the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the above- mentioned facts create serious doubt on the case of the prosecution.
23. 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."
24. Similarly, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Safiullah v. State, 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."
Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 445/2022 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Devender Pratap Singh & Anr. KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.01.23
16:25:53
+0530
Page 18 of 19
25. 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.
26. Furthermore, it is to be noted that accused no.2 Jagbir Singh has also been made accused in the present matter u/s 33/52(2) Delhi Excise Act. In this regard, it is admitted position that accused no.2 is the owner of offending vehicle, however, 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 no.1 Devender Pratap Singh, accused no.2 namely Jagbir Singh cannot be held liable u/s 33/52(2) Delhi Excise Act.
27. 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 Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
FIR No: 445/2022 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Devender Pratap Singh & Anr. 2026.01.23 16:25:58 +0530 Page 19 of 19 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.
28. Hence, accused persons namely (1). Devender Pratap Singh, S/o Sh. Markande Singh and (2). Jagbir Singh Bhatti, S/o Sh. Mukhtiyar Singh Bhati stands acquitted for the offence punishable under section 33/52(2)/58 of Delhi Excise Act, they have been charged with. Ordered accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.01.2026. IT IS CERTIFIED THAT THE PRESENT JUDGMENT RUNS INTO NINETEEN PAGES AND EACH PAGE BEARS SIGNATURE OF THE UNDERSIGNED. Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2026.01.23 16:26:05 +0530 (ASHISH KUMAR MEENA) JMFC-01/SAKET COURT(SOUTH) NEW DELHI/23.01.2026 FIR No: 445/2022 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Devender Pratap Singh & Anr.