Delhi District Court
State vs Sangeeta on 23 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS VASUNDHARA AZAD, CJM, WEST, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT-02-010178-2023
State Vs. Sangeeta
FIR No. : 363/2022
Police Station : Kirti Nagar
Under Section : 33 Delhi Excise Act
Date of institution : 24.06.2023
Date of pronouncement : 23.03.2026
JUDGMENT
a) Cr. Cases number of the case 5810/2023
b) Date of commission of offence 16.05.2022
c) Name of the complainant Ct. Naveen
d) Name, parentage and address of the Sangeeta W/o Sh. Raj Kumar accused R/o Jhuggi No.932, T-Huts C5/35 Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar, West, Delhi
e) Offence complained of Section 33 of Delhi Excise Act
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order Acquitted
h) Date of final order 23.03.2026 State Vs. Sangeeta FIR No.363/2022 PS: Kirti Nagar Page no.1/14 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.03.23 17:49:29 +0530 BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Briefly stated, it is the case of prosecution that on 16.05.2022 at about 09.20 PM at Railway Line near underpass, Kirti Nagar, Delhi, accused Sangeeta was found in possession of one plastic Katta containing 105 quarter bottles of illicit liquor bearing mark "Santra Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only" without any valid license or permission and thus she is guilty of having committed offence U/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act.
ACCUSATION AGAINST THE ACCUSED
2. Vide order dated 04.01.2025, charge for offence under Section 33 of Delhi Excise Act was framed against the accused, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
3. In order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution in all examined 03 witnesses. A chart specifying their role is appended below, which is thereafter followed with a chart of exhibited documents and then brief description of the testimony of PWs in court.
Prosecution Name of Description
witness no. witnesses
PW-1 Ct. Naveen Recovery
witness
PW-2 Wct. Annu Recovery
witness
PW-3 HC Deepesh Investigating
State Vs. Sangeeta FIR No.363/2022 PS: Kirti Nagar Page no.2/14 Digitally signed
by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.03.23
17:49:34
+0530
Prosecution Name of Description
witness no. witnesses
Kumar Officer of the
case
Exhibit No. Description of the Proved
Exhibit by/Atteste
d by
Ex.PW1/A Form M-29 PW-1
Ex.PW1/B Seizure memo of PW-1
illicit liquor
Ex.PW1/C Statement of PW-1
PW-1 Ct. Naveen
recorded by IO
u/s 161 Cr.PC
Ex.PW1/D Rukka / Tehrir PW-1
Ex.PW1/E Site plan PW-1
Ex.PW1/F Notice u/s 41 PW-1
Cr.PC served upon
accused.
Ex.PW1/G Bound down PW-1
memo of accused
Ex.P-1 Photograph of PW-1
(Colly.) seized case
property and
certificate/
confiscation order/
destruction order
accompanied by
GD no.91A dated
17.09.2023 vide
which case
property was
destroyed
Ex.P-2 Sample quarter PW-1
State Vs. Sangeeta FIR No.363/2022 PS: Kirti Nagar Page no.3/14
Digitally signed
by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD
Date:
2026.03.23
17:49:39 +0530
Exhibit No. Description of the Proved
Exhibit by/Atteste
d by
bottle of illicit
liquor
Ex.PW3/A Rukka / Tehrir PW-3
Ex.PW3/B Interrogation PW-3
report of accused
4. Brief summary of the testimonies of the above stated witnesses is as follows:
a. PW-1 Ct. Naveen has deposed that on 16.05.2022 when he was posted as Constable at PS Kirti Nagar and was on patrolling duty with W/Ct. Annu during patrolling duty at about 9:00 PM when they reached near Railway Line Underpass, Kirti Nagar, they found accused Sangeeta in possession of a sack containing 105 quarter bottles of illicit liquor bearing mark 'Santara Desi Sharab for Sale in Haryana only'. It is further deposed by PW-1 Ct. Naveen that one quarter was taken out from the sack as a sample bottle and was sealed the same with the seal of 'DK', form M-29 (Ex.PW1/A) was filled and recovered illicit liquor was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW1/B). PW-1 Ct. Naveen has further deposed that IO handed over the seal after use to him, recorded his statement (Ex.PW1/C), prepared tehrir (Ex.PW1/D) and handed over the same to him for FIR registration. PW-1 Ct. Naveen has further deposed that thereafter, IO prepared site plan (Ex.PW1/E), accused was interrogated and notice u/s 41 Cr.PC (Ex.PW1/F) was served upon her and she was bound down vide memo (Ex.PW1/G). PW-1 Ct. Naveen correctly identified accused State Vs. Sangeeta FIR No.363/2022 PS: Kirti Nagar Page no.4/14 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.03.23 17:49:44 +0530 present in the Court as well as the case property. PW-1 Ct. Naveen was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and thereafter discharged.
b. PW-2 W/Ct. Annu has deposed along same lines of PW-1 as she was on patrolling duty with PW-1 Ct. Naveen when accused was apprehended with illicit liquor. PW-2 W/Ct. Annu correctly identified accused present in the Court as well as the case property. PW-2 W/Ct. Annu was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and thereafter discharged.
c. PW-3 HC Deepesh Kumar, who has deposed that on 16.05.2022, on receipt on DD no.89A he reached at the spot i.e. Railway Line, Underpas, Kirti Nagar where he met Ct. Naveen (PW-1) and W/Ct. Annu (PW-2), who handed over to him custody of accused Sangeeta as well as of the case property, thereafter which he carried out further investigation in the matter and filled up form M-29 (Ex.PW1/A), seized case property (Ex.PW1/B), prepared tehrir (Ex.PW3/A) and got present FIR (Ex.A-2) through Ct. Naveen, prepared site plan (Ex.PW1/C), interrogated accused vide memo (Ex.PW3/B), served notice u/s 41A Cr.PC (Ex.PW1/F) upon the accused and bound her down vide memo (Ex.PW1/G). PW-3 HC Deepesh Kumar correctly identified accused present in the Court. PW-3 HC Deepesh Kumar was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and thereafter discharged.
State Vs. Sangeeta FIR No.363/2022 PS: Kirti Nagar Page no.5/14 Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.03.23
17:49:50
+0530
5. It is to be noted that as per statement of accused recorded under Sec.
294 Cr.PC (Sec. 330 BNSS) on 16.10.2025, the following documents were admitted by the accused:-
Sr. No. Documents Exhibits
1. DD No. 101A dated Ex. A-1.
16.05.2022
2. Copy of FIR no.363/22, PS Ex. A-2 & Ex. A-3 Kirti Nagar with certificate u/s 65(B) Evidence Act
3. Road Certificate bearing Ex. A-4 & Ex. A-5 no.63/21/22 dated 21.06.2022 & Excise result dated 11.08.2022
4. Statement of ASI Ex.A-6 Akhileshwar and Ct. Rajesh Kumar, both dated 21.06.2022.
6. Since all the prosecution witnesses were examined, at request of Ld. APP for the State, prosecution evidence was closed and matter was fixed for recording statement of accused U/s.313 Cr.P.C.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SEC. 313 Cr.PC
7. In her examination under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, accused denied the entire evidence put to her and opted not to lead DE. Thereafter, DE was closed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
8. Final arguments advanced by Ld. APP for State and Ld. counsel for accused heard. Case file perused carefully.
State Vs. Sangeeta FIR No.363/2022 PS: Kirti Nagar Page no.6/14 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.03.23 17:49:56 +0530
9. Ld. APP has urged that all the witnesses have supported the prosecution case and the case against the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused has argued that the guilt of the accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt due to material discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
10. On the other hand, it is argued by Ld. counsel for accused that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case as there is nothing on record to show that the guilt of the accused. There are no public witness to substantiate the commission of the offence and hence, accused be acquitted.
11. The case of the prosecution is that on the fateful day the accused was found in possession of illicit liqour. In order to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt the recovery of illicit liquor from the possession of the accused and that such possession was illegal.
12. From the overall testimony of the witnesses, it is clear that the IO has not joined any public witness in the investigation. All the witnesses examined are police witnesses. This casts a doubt about the sincere efforts made by the IO to join independence witnesses.
No public witness to the recovery of the illicit liquor have been cited in the list of witnesses or examined by the prosecution.
State Vs. Sangeeta FIR No.363/2022 PS: Kirti Nagar Page no.7/14 Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.03.23
17:50:01
+0530
13. It has been deposed in the testimony before the court that the public witnesses present refused to join investigation. In 'Roop Chand V. State of Haryana' [1990(1) CLR 69], it was observed that such explanations that the public persons refused to join the proceedings are unreliable. In 'Pradeep Narayana V. State of Maharashtra' [AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1930], it was held that failure of police to join witness from locality during search creates doubt about fairness of the investigation, benefit of which has to go to the accused. Similarly, as per 'Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Haryana' [2004(4) RCR 103] and 'Passi @ Prakash V. State of Haryana' [2001 (1) RCR 435], it is settled law that whenever any recovery in connection with the place of commission of offence is made, public person must be made witness. In the present case, the IO / PW-3 HC Deepesh even failed to note down the particulars of the person who refused to join the investigation and this creates doubt regarding the fairness of the investigation. The chances of false implication cannot be ruled out.
14. IO / PW-3 HC Deepesh was under obligation to issue notice in writing to the public persons, who refused to join the police investigation particularly in the background when the accused has already been apprehended by the police. IO has not even placed on record the names of the passersby who were asked to join the investigation and neither have any reasons been mentioned by the IO for refusal by the people who were approached to join the investigation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that police has not made sincere effort to join independent State Vs. Sangeeta FIR No.363/2022 PS: Kirti Nagar Page no.8/14 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.03.23 17:50:06 +0530 public witnesses during investigation. Reliance is placed on ' Anoop V/s State', [1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC)], wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed :
"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 citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
15. In light of the aforesaid, the omissions/ failure on the part of investigating agency to join independent public witnesses create reasonable doubt in the prosecution story. Bald averments that public persons were asked to join the investigation but none agreed without giving any written notice to them does not inspire the confidence of the Court.
16. It is a well settled proposition that non-joining of public witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. This Court is, however, conscious that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non-joining of public witnesses as public witnesses generally keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable, as has been held in ' Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat', [1988 SC 696]. However, in the present case, it is not only the absence of public witnesses which raises a State Vs. Sangeeta FIR No.363/2022 PS: Kirti Nagar Page no.9/14 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.03.23 17:50:11 +0530 doubt on the prosecution version but there are other circumstances too, as discussed hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the prosecution version.
17. For instance, PW-1 Ct.Naveen and PW-2 W Ct.Annu have in their testimonies deposed that the seized liquor was sealed with the seal of 'DK' which was thereafter handed over to Ct. Naveen. PW-1 Ct.Naveen never stated anything as to how the seal of DK was being used by him. Seal in the present case was not handed over to any independent witness nor was it deposited in the malkhana to assail the possibility of its misuse. Therefore, the circumstances under which the seal was obtained and used is under a shadow of doubt. Moreover, no seal handing over memo was also prepared.
18. This assumes great significance owing to the fact that the sample was sent to Excise Lab only on 21.06.2022, i.e. after a period of about 35 days from the date of alleged seizure i.e. 16.05.2022. The seal remained with the police officials of the same police station and therefore, the possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out. Moreover, it is not even the case of the prosecution that the seal was not within the reach of the IO and thus, there was no scope of tampering of case property. Additionally, no efforts were taken to lift chance prints of the accused from the illicit liquor which could have lend credence to the prosecution version.
19. The fact of the accused being present at the spot is shrouded with clouds of ambiguity and casts a doubt over the actual presence of the State Vs. Sangeeta FIR No.363/2022 PS: Kirti Nagar Page no.10/14 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.03.23 17:50:17 +0530 accused at the spot as no credible piece of evidence has been brought by the prosecution, rendering the version of the prosecution unworthy of credit.
20. The seizure memo (Ex PW1/B) in the present case is also doubtful.
A careful reading of the testimonies of PW1 Ct. Naveen and PW-3 HC Deepesh reflect that PW-3 HC Deepesh had seized the case property vide seizure memo (Ex.PW1/B) at the spot and had thereafter prepared the tehrir and handed over the same to PW-1 Ct. Naveen for registration of FIR. The narration of such a chronology of events leads to the irresistible conclusion that the seizure memo of property was prepared at the spot, prior to the tehrir being sent to the police station for registration of the FIR and that the FIR was, therefore, admittedly registered after the preparation of the said document.
21. Accordingly, it follows that the number of the FIR would have come to the knowledge of the investigating officer only after a copy of the FIR was brought to the spot by PW-1 Ct. Naveen. Thus, ordinarily, the FIR number should not find mention in the seizure memo, which document came into existence before registration of the FIR. However, quite surprisingly, perusal of seizure memo reflects the mentioning of the full particulars of the FIR thereupon, which fact has remained unexplained on behalf of the prosecution. It is not even the case that the same, on the face of it, appears to have been written in separate ink or at some left over space. Rather, it appears to have been recorded in same continuity, handwriting and ink as rest of the State Vs. Sangeeta FIR No.363/2022 PS: Kirti Nagar Page no.11/14 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.03.23 17:50:23 +0530 contents of these documents. No explanation from the prosecution is forthcoming as to how the FIR number surfaced on a document which was prepared prior to the registration of the FIR. This fact casts a fatal doubt upon the case of prosecution.
22. At this stage, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 'Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi Administration'', [1989 Cri. L.J. 127], wherein it was observed in paragraph 5 as follows:
"6.....Learned counsel for the state concedes that immediately after the arrest of the accused, his personal search was effected and the memo Ex.PW11/D was prepared. Thereafter, the sketch plan of the knife was prepared in the presence of the witnesses. After that, the ruqa Ex.PW11/F was sent to the Police Station for the registration of the case on the basis of which the FIR, PW 11/G was recorded. The F.I.R. is numbered as 36, a copy of which was sent to the I.O. after its registration. It comes to that the number of F.I.R. 36 came to the knowledge of the I.O. after a copy of it was delivered to him at the spot by a Ct. . In the normal circumstances, the F.I.R. No. should not find mention in the recovery memo or the sketch plan which had come into existence before the registration of the case. However, from the perusal of the recovery memo, I find that the FIR is mentioned whereas the sketch plan does not show the number of the FIR. It is not explained as to how and under what circumstances the recovery memo came to bear the F.I.R. No. which had already come into existence before the registration of the case. These are few of the circumstances which create a doubt, in my mind, about the genuineness of the weapon of offence alleged to have been recovered from the accused."
23. Similarly, in paragraph 4 of 'Mohd. Hashim vs State', [82 (1999) DLT 375], Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed:
"8...Surprisingly, the secret information (Ex. P.W. 7/A) received by the Sub-Inspector Narender Kumar Tyagi (P.W.
7), the notice under S. 50 of the Act (Ex. P.W. 5/A) alleged to have been served on the appellant, the seizure memo (Ex.
P.W. 1/A) and the report submitted under S. 57 of the Act (Ex. P.W. 7/D) bear the number of the FIR (Ex. P.W. 4/B). The number of the FIR (Ex. P.W. 4/B) given on the top of the aforesaid documents is in the same ink and in the same handwriting, which clearly indicates that these documents were prepared at the same time. The prosecution has not offered any explanation as to under what circumstances State Vs. Sangeeta FIR No.363/2022 PS: Kirti Nagar Page no.12/14 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.03.23 17:50:29 +0530 number of the FIR (Ex. P.W. 4/B) had appeared on the top of the aforesaid documents, which were allegedly prepared on the spot. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR (Ex. P.W. 4/B) was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the contraband or number of the said FIR was inserted in these documents 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 recovery of the contraband in the manner alleged by the prosecution."
24. The aforesaid rulings of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi squarely apply to the facts in the present case as well, which leads to only one of the either inference, that is, either the FIR was registered prior to the alleged recovery of the case property, or that said document was prepared later in point of time. In either of the scenarios, a dent is created in the version of the prosecution, the benefit of which must accrue to the accused.
CONCLUSION
25. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution. Also, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that the accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
26. The facts that no independent witnesses have been cited or examined and given the doubtful seizure memo along with the fact that possibility of misuse of seal cannot be ruled out, there is a cloud of suspicion cast over the case of the prosecution. In view of the State Vs. Sangeeta FIR No.363/2022 PS: Kirti Nagar Page no.13/14 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.03.23 17:50:35 +0530 aforesaid, the possibility of false implication of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out.
27. In view of the above stated discussions, it can be held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence coming on record entitles the accused to be acquitted in the present case. Therefore, accused namely Sangeeta is hereby acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 33 of Delhi Excise Act.
28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, in view of the facts stated above, I am of the view that benefit of doubt ought to be granted to the accused as prosecution has failed to connect the accused with the offences U/s. 33 Delhi Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said offence, for which she has been charged with. Case property be confiscated to state as per rules.
Let digitally signed copy of this judgment be uploaded on the district court website.
Announced in open Court on 23.03.2026. Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date: 2026.03.23 17:50:42 +0530 (VASUNDHARA AZAD) Chief Judicial Magistrate, West District Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi /23.03.2026 State Vs. Sangeeta FIR No.363/2022 PS: Kirti Nagar Page no.14/14