Delhi District Court
State vs Rafakat Khan on 7 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF RISHABH KAPOOR, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -05 SOUTH WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Rafakat Digitally
signed by
RISHABH
RISHABH KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
FIR No : 509/2016
2025.08.07
14:29:31
+0530
U/s : 33 Delhi Excise Act
P.S. : Vikas Puri
JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Case No. : 2464/17 2. Date of commission of offence : 02.08.2016 3. Date of institution of the case : 29.03.2017 4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name and parentage of accused : Rafakat Khan s/o Sh. Shahmad Khan
6. Offense complained or proved : Section 33 Delhi Excise Act
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 29.07.2025
9. Final order : Acquitted
10. Date of final order : 07.08.2025
1. The accused is facing trial for offence u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act. The genesis of the prosecution story is that on 02.08.2016 at about 9:45 AM at Bharat Petrol Pump opposite H-Block Vikas Puri Delhi, the accused was found in possession of 187 cartons of illegal liquor in tempo bearing no. DL-1LM-8508, out State Vs Rafakat FIR No : 509/2016 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 1 of which 157 Cartons contained 48 quarter bottles each of liquor make "Impact Grain Whisky for Sale in Haryana only", 16 cartons contained 48 quarter bottles each of illicit liquor make "Episode Classic Whisky for Sale in Haryana only" and 14 cartons contained 50 quarters bottles each of liquor make "Santara Masaledar Deshi Sharab for Sale in Haryana only"
without any license or permit or authority. The criminal law was set into motion by registration of FIR against the accused and investigation into the case began. After completion of the investigation, the present charge-sheet was filed for conducting trial of the accused for the alleged offences.
2. After taking cognizance of the offences, the copy of charge-sheet was supplied to accused in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. The arguments on charges were heard and charge for offence u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act was framed against accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed and trial. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was led.
3. In order to prove allegations against accused, prosecution has examined nine prosecution witnesses.
4. The proceedings u/s 294 Cr.P.C. were conducted wherein accused admitted Excise Lab result dated 09.09.2016 which is Ex.AD-1. Pursuant to the admission made by accused of the said document, witness at Sr. No.10 was dropped from the list of witness.
5. Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their testimony has remained unrebutted. It has been further argued that on the combined reading of the testimony of all the State Vs Rafakat FIR No : 509/2016 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 2 prosecution witnesses, offence u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act has been proved beyond doubt.
6. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused and that the accused has been falsely implicated by the police officials and the recovery of illicit liquor has been planted upon him. Arguing further, Ld. counsel has inter-alia submitted that no public witnesses were joined by the police officials during investigation and no recovery photographs were also taken on record by the investigating officer. It is further argued that due to the lacunae and incoherency in the story of the prosecution, accused be given the benefit of doubt and is therefore, entitled to be acquitted.
7. Prior to delving into the contentions raised by the prosecution and defense, let us discuss the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses in brief.
PW-1 Ct Vijay Pal deposed that on 02.08.2016 pursuant to receipt of information vide DD no. 32 B, he along with HC Satender Thakur and Ct. Vikram reached the spot at road opposite Bharat Petrol Pump H-Block Vikas Puri Delhi where, they met HC Prem, who produced accused Rafakat Khan along with the tempo no. DL-1LM-8508 which contained the illicit liquor. He further deposed that HC Satender Thakur checked the tempo and found 187 cartons of illicit liquor. He deposed that one bottle from each of the carton were separated as samples and thereafter, the samples along with the remaining liquor were sealed with the seal of "SK" and same were seized vide memo Ex. PW1/A. He further deposed that thereafter HC Satender prepared tehrir, on the basis of which the FIR was State Vs Rafakat FIR No : 509/2016 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 3 registered and during investigation, he prepared site plan Ex. PW 1/B, seized the tempo vide memo Ex. PW 1/C, seized the RC of tempo vide memo Ex. PW 1/C 1, arrested accused vide memo Ex. PW 1/D, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW 1/E and recorded his disclosure statement vide memo Ex. PW 1/F. He also identified accused Rfakat Khan and the case property in court.
PW-2 HC Prem Kumar was the member of the police patrolling team which allegedly apprehended the accused along with the illicit liquor. He deposed that on 02.08.2016 at about 9:40 AM while he was along with Ct. Praveen and Ct. Sunil were on patrolling duty, he apprehended the accused at the instance of secret informer as the accused was found carrying illegal liquor in tempo no. DL-1LM-8508. He further deposed that pursuant to sending information to PS, HC Satender, Ct. Vijay Pal and Ct. Vikram reached at the spot, and the case property and accused were handed over to HC Satender, who recorded his statement Ex. PW 2/A. He further deposed that HC Satender separated the one bottle each from each of 187 Cartons of the illicit liquor, and sealed the same, prepared rukka, prepared site plan, arrested the accused, recorded his disclosure statement and conducted his personal search. The destruction order of the case property is Ex. PW 2/B and he identified the case property in photographs Ex. P1 to Ex. P6.
PW-3 Ct. Amit is a formal witness who deposed that on 02.08.2016, the DD no.32 B was handed over him by the Duty Officer and thereafter, he handed over the same to IO/HC Satender.
PW-4 W/HC Florance is another formal witness who deposed of having made entry qua the information regarding apprehension of accused with the illicit liquor vide DD no. 32B State Vs Rafakat FIR No : 509/2016 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 4 Ex. PW 4/A. She further deposed that on same day, pursuant to rukka received from HC Satender, she registered FIR Ex. PW 4/B vide endorsement on rukka Ex. PW 4/C and issued certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act vide Ex. PW 4/D. PW-5 HC Umesh Kumar deposed that on 16.08.2016 , he had taken the samples of the liquor from Malkahana of PS Vikas Puri and deposited the same at Excise Lab ITO vide RC no. 93/21/16 which is Ex. PW 5/A. PW-6 Ct. Vikram is the police official who accompanied IO to the spot and his testimony is also similar to that of PW-1 and hence, same is not being reproduced to avoid repetition. Through him, the departure entry vide DD no. 26B was exhibited as Ex. PW 6/A. During his cross-examination, he stated that some public persons were asked to join the investigation but none agreed for the same. He admitted that no notices were given to any public persons for joining the investigation.
PW-7 SI Satender Kumar was the IO in the case and he deposed about the proceedings of investigation conducted by him. His testimony is also similar to that of PW-1 and PW-6 and hence, same is also not being reproduced to avoid repetition. Through him, rukka was exhibited as Ex. PW 7/A. During his cross examination, he also admitted that he did not give any notice to public persons who refused to join the investigation.
PW-8 SI Ripu Daman deposed that on 16.08.2016 he had given samples of the case property to HC Umesh Kumar vide Ex. PW 5/A and after depositing the same with Excise Lab, the receipts were handed over to him by HC Umesh Kumar.
PW-9 HC Prahlad was the MHCM who deposed that on 02.08.2016, IO/HC Satender had deposited the case property in Malkhana vide entry no. 21/21/66 in Register no.19 which is State Vs Rafakat FIR No : 509/2016 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 5 Ex. PW9/A and on 16.08.2016, the samples were handed over to HC Umesh for depositing in Excise Lab, ITO and entry in that regard was also made in Register no. 21 vide Ex. PW 9/B. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.:
8. Statement of the accused u/s Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded separately in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to her. The accused controverted and denied the allegations levelled against her and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case.
Accused further opted not to lead evidence in her defence, hence, DE was closed.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:
9. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both the parties. Accused Rafakat has been indicted for the offence u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act.
10. In order to prove the offence under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, the prosecution must establish the fulfilment of all the essential ingredients of the offence. The contents of Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act are reproduced as follows:
"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;
State Vs Rafakat FIR No : 509/2016 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 6 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, 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."
It is also significant to note that Section 52 of Delhi Excise Act lays down a rebuttable presumption which goes as follows:
"Section 52. Presumption as to commission of offence in certain cases:
1. In prosecution under section 33, it shall be presumed, 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. ........."
11. It is a trite law that the burden always lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence and that the law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on account of suspicion alone. Also, it is well settled that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in State Vs Rafakat FIR No : 509/2016 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 7 the prosecution story and such doubt entitles him to acquittal. The words "for the possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily" used in Section 52(1) of the Delhi Excise Act clearly reveal that as a pre-requisite for the presumption under the aforesaid provision being raised against the accused, it is imperative for the prosecution to successfully establish the recovery of the said alleged articles from the possession of the accused. It is only after the prosecution has proved the possession of the alleged articles by the accused, that the accused can be called upon to account for the same. However, as discussed hereinafter, careful scrutiny of the evidence placed on record brings to light the fact that the case of the prosecution is fraught with multiple inconsistencies, rendering the prosecution version incredible, owing to which, no presumption, as provided for under Section 52 of the Act, can be raised against the accused in the present case.
i). Doubtful Seizure Memo and Form M-29.
12. A careful reading of the testimony of PW-1, PW 2, PW-6 and PW-7 reflects that the IO had seized the illicit liquor vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A and filled in the Form M-29, both at the spot and thereafter rukka Ex. PW 7/A was prepared which was handed over to Ct. Vikram for registration of FIR. The narration of such a chronology of events leads to the irresistible conclusion that the seizure memo of the liquor and Form M-29 were prepared at the spot prior to the rukka being sent to the police station for registration of the FIR and that the FIR was, therefore, admittedly registered after the preparation of these documents. Accordingly, it follows that the number of the FIR would have come to the knowledge of the investigating officer State Vs Rafakat FIR No : 509/2016 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 8 only after a copy of the FIR was brought to the spot by Ct. Vikram. Thus, ordinarily, the FIR number should not find mention in the seizure memo and Form M-29, both of which documents came into existence before registration of the FIR. However, quite surprisingly, perusal of seizure memo and Form M-29 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, on the seizure memo, it appears to have been recorded in same continuity, handwriting and ink as rest of the 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.
13. At this stage, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Lalit v. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri. L.J. 127, wherein it was observed in paragraph 5 as follows:
"....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 constable. 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 State Vs Rafakat FIR No : 509/2016 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 9 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."
14. Similarly, in paragraph 4 of Mohd. Hashim vs State, 82 (1999) DLT 375, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed:
"...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 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."
15. 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 illicit liquor, or that the said documents were prepared later in point of time. In State Vs Rafakat FIR No : 509/2016 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 10 either of the scenarios, a dent is created in the version of the prosecution, the benefit of which must accrue to the accused.
ii). The non-joining of any independent / public witness.
16. It is evident from the record that no public witnesses to the recovery of the liquor have been either cited in the list of prosecution witnesses or have been examined by the prosecution. It was admitted by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 that the public persons were available near the spot of occurrence. Apparently, IO had also admitted that spot of occurrence is a busy public road and public persons were present nearby but no explanation has come from IO as to why he did not join any public persons during the proceedings despite their availability. Admittedly, no notice was served to such public persons upon their refusal to join investigation in the case. Thus, it is not the case of prosecution that public witnesses were not available at the spot. However, from a perusal of the record, no serious efforts for joining public witnesses appears to have been made by the investigating officer. These facts are squarely covered by the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as, Anoop Joshi Vs. State" 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), wherein it was observed as under:
".........18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court 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 evidence 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 State Vs Rafakat FIR No : 509/2016 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 11 the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC."
17. Further, in a case law reported as Roop Chand v. The State of Haryana, 1999 (1) C.L.R. 69, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:
"........The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the possession of the petitioner during noon time and it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses from the public were available and they were asked to join the investigation. The explanation furnished by the prosecution is that the independent witnesses were asked to join the investigation but they refused to do so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity between them and the petitioner.
18. 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 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 the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the IO must have proceeded against them under the relevant provision of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact State Vs Rafakat FIR No : 509/2016 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 12 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."
19. In fact, in this regard, Section 100 of the Cr.P.C also accords assistance to the aforesaid finding, by providing that whenever any search is made, two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality are required to be made witnesses to such search, and the search is to be made in their presence. Under Section 100(8) Cr.P.C, refusal to be a witness can render such non willing public witness liable for criminal prosecution. Despite the availability of such a provision, no sincere attempts were made by the police to join witnesses in the present case. Therefore, non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of law, even though public witnesses were easily available in the vicinity, makes the prosecution version highly doubtful.
20. This Court is conscious of the legal position that non- joining of independent witnesses cannot be the sole ground to discard or doubt the prosecution case, as has been held in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. However, evidence in every case is to be sifted through in light of the varied facts and circumstances of each individual case. As observed above, the testimony of the police witnesses in the present case is not worthy of credit. In such a situation, evidence of an independent witness would have rendered the much needed corroborative value, to the otherwise uncompelling case of the prosecution, as discussed above, and hereinafter.
State Vs Rafakat FIR No : 509/2016 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 13
iii). Possibility of misuse of seal of the investigating officer.
21. As per the version of the prosecution witnesses, the recovered liquor and sample bottles were duly sealed by IO with the seal of "SK". Nothing has come in the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses qua handing over of seal to any independent public persons by the IO after sealing the case property and the samples of illicit liquor. Thus, it is apparent that the seal was not handed over to any independent witness. There is nothing on record to suggest that IO had made efforts to handover the seal to any independent witness. Further, no handing over memo is on record to show the genuineness of fact of actual handing over of seal by IO either to any independent public witnesses or even to any other police officials who were present at the spot. In such a factual backdrop, one irresistible conclusion is drawn that either the seal remained with the IO or other 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.
22. In this regard, judgment in case titled as Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2007 (3) RCR (CRIMINAL) 452, may be adverted to, wherein it was observed in paragraph 7 that:
"....The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property. It is well State Vs Rafakat FIR No : 509/2016 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 14 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. In the present case, the seal of Investigating Officer-Hoshiar Singh bearing impression HS was available with Maha Singh, a junior police official and that of Deputy Superintendent of Police remained with Deputy Superintendent of Police himself. Therefore, the possibility of tampering with seals as well as seized contraband and samples cannot be ruled out."
23. Similarly, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Safiullah v. State, (1993) 49 DLT 193, had observed:
"9. ... The seal after use were kept by the police officials themselves therefore the possibility of tempering 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 tempered with. The prosecution could have proved from the CFSL form itself and from the road certificate as to what articles were taken from the Malkahana. Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused..."....
11. It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the seal after use was handed over to any of the independent witness. Even the I.O. examined as PW-2 does not utter a word regarding the handing over of the seal after use. Therefore, the conclusion which can be arrived at is that the seal remained with the Investigating Officer or with the other member of the raiding party therefore the possibility of interference or tempering of the seal and the contents of the parcel cannot be ruled out...."
24 Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, the possibility of misuse of seal and tampering of case property cannot be ruled out.
iv). Failure to prove the possession of alcohol by accused beyond permissible limits.
25. The perusal of record shows that the Excise Result dated 09.09.2016 (Ex.AD-1) was obtained qua 13 sample bottles (13 State Vs Rafakat FIR No : 509/2016 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 15 bottles of 180 ml each) only, whereby the presence of alcohol in the said sample bottles was confirmed. The presence of alcohol in the remaining allegedly recovered liquor bottles has not been thus, proved by the prosecution. Now, since the State has only found 13 bottles (3.42 litres), allegedly recovered from the accused, containing alcohol, an offence under section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 cannot be said to have been made out as the same falls within the maximum permissible limit specified under Rule 20 of the Delhi Excise Rules, 2010. At this juncture, the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in its judgment titled as Nagesh S/O Ningaiah vs The State Of Karnataka, Criminal Revision Petition No.772 /2009, decided on 31 January, 2014, may be adverted to, wherein, while acquitting the accused of a similar offence, following observations were made:
"It is seen from the mahazar that out of 49,440 Whisky bottles, 15 Whisky bottles of 180 ml. each were sent for Chemical Analysis, and it is opined that there was presence of Ethyl Alcohol in all the bottles that were sent for Chemical Examination, fit for consumption. Thus, the total quantity sent for Chemical Analysis is less than permitted quantity under law. We do not know the contents of the other bottles seized under a Panchanama. There is no evidence to show that all other bottles also contained alcohol. When the quantity found in the bottle sent for Chemical Examination is less than permitted limit and when there is no evidence regarding the contents of all other bottles seized under Panchanama, it cannot be said that the accused was in possession of the illicit liquor without pass or permit more than permitted quantity so as to constitute an offence. The unreported decision of this Court in W.P.No.17991/2011 (Excise), dated 28.02.2012, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is rightly applicable to the facts of this case.........In this case also the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused was in possession of liquor more than permitted quantity."
26. There is no gainsaying that if two reasonably probable and evenly balanced views of the evidence are possible, one State Vs Rafakat FIR No : 509/2016 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 16 must necessarily concede to the existence of a reasonable doubt. The aforementioned lacunae in the story of the prosecution render the version of the prosecution doubtful, leading to the irresistible conclusion that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt has not been discharged by the prosecution. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring on record any cogent evidence in order to prove the commission of and guilt of the accused for offences u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt, thus, entitling the accused person to benefit of doubt and acquittal.
27. Accordingly, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused for the offences u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act and holds the accused not guilty of commission of the said offence. Accused Rafakat is thus, acquitted of the offence u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act.
Announced in the open court on 07.08.2025.
(Rishabh Kapoor) JMFC-05 South West District Dwarka Courts, Delhi State Vs Rafakat FIR No : 509/2016 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 17