Delhi District Court
State vs Was Tek Found on 28 January, 2008
7654321
12.prosecution.
information
from
the
Hence,
entire
the Ipossession
have
evidence
INwas
noreceived
THE COURT Jaccused.
hesitation
of
onthe U toDSURESH
record.
that
OF GProsecution
MPW-4
ahold E NKUMAR
person
that T
prosecution
will
Ct Satbir
examined
comeGUPTA
has
on
hascorroborated
4scooter
failed
witnessess
tobearing
prove
the
in
10.its
registration
version
order
PW-4
case
tostated
of
prove
against
PW-2 METROPOLITAN
No.DL-5SJ-7491
initsthe
in
the
case.
his
chief
accused
chief
PW-2&4
examinationMAGISTRATE
examination.
from
beyond
are
Janta
the
shadow
that
Colony
witnessess
formofexcise
side
reasonable
to
and
was
thewill
recovery
filled.
go
doubt
towards
PW-2
who
and
6. I-Block,
allegedly
is
PW-2
silent stated
toWelcome KARKARDOOMA
apprehended
thisineffect.
the via
cross-examination COURTS, DELHI
1.accordingly The allegationsaccused are isthe that Aon Photo bare accused. perusal acquittedChowk 01.04.99 Their ofatofthe that who cross-examination testimony 8.00 the canaccused at be offence PM ischarged.
Main material apprehended wasofknown Road, PW-2&4 to prove File near on to be 80 FIR NO.62/1999 immediate them the shows recovery before consignedthat Plots, Near raid.
they hand.
of are to Record On alleged He not Photo Room.this had aware liquor information seen of the pouches the accused excise 4-5 Chowk, Welcome, Delhi accused from passerby from form.
the a distance PW-2 were possession asked stated of 50to of in paces join the State Vs.was Tek found Bahadur in cross-examination them and accused.
stopped but none possession Iofthe have 229 ofscooter that perused themheby pouches agreed cannot their ofplacing and countryidentify testimony.
their went made motor the away U/s excise Their cycle without 61(i)(a) liquor form.
testimony meant across Punjabdisclosing for So,thehe does scooter. Excise sale cannot their without not Act names The inspire say PS. Welcome any whether writing ANNOUNCED and confidence. license addresses.
work itorwasIN was filled It done THE permit. They hasor come not.
while Afterreached in PW-4 sitting usual the at investigation 7.45 cross-examination stated under SURESH PM intheat the 80 electric KUMAR cross-examination Plot, charge ofGUPTA pole near PWS sheet on Photo that the was OPEN Chowk.
road accused that he COURT side.
does was One No ON scooter not apprehended notice know 28.01.08 rider waswhat was from given METROPOLITAN isapprehended excise the to public market format person place.
and 8.00failedPM who MAGISTRATE The while refused towords identify comingto of join the on submitted U/s 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act.
1. Sl. no. of the case 324A/07/2000dtd.17.09.07 KARKARDOOMA COURTS, RBT scooter them.
mouth excise form The of bearing PW-2 accused when registration that samewas market was
2. Accused put his appearance. Copies of challanapprehended shown No.DL-5SJ-7491 was closed to him.
from doesIt the is on not market. clear theinspire signal from The were/ supplied confidence the ofshops testimony informer.
were as DELHI 28.01.08 to him. 153/3 dtd. 28.09.99 Original The already question that person both closed.
of of closing disclosed them He are of didhis not market not After hearing, charge U/s 61(1)(a) of Punjab name aware go attoas 8.00 of Kabari Tekthe PMBahadur. fact Shop does thatbut notExcise what One IO arise had military isatexcise Actgone all.wascolour Moreover, there.
form. bag framed He In
2. Date of commission of offence 01.04.99 was does it these hasrecovered against not circumstances come him know from on from whether thehis 04.04.00 they testimony possession. excise cannot by my Ld. form depose of PW-2 Thewasthat bagthat Predecessorfilled excise was thetoin checked. white form his presence which was colour heThefilled Dicky bag pleaded orinwas not.
the of not
3. Date of Institution 31.01.00 the Rukka brought court.scooter was Infrom these sent was guilty and claimed trial. a kabari circumstances toalsoPS checked.
at shop 9.30 by PM.
the the 229 Prosecution of examination The IO, pouches meaning suggestion ofthereby Desi examinedHC is denied Sharab Uttam that 4 thatshops Chand Masaledar nothing were witnessess. was
4. Name of the Complainant ASI Gaje Singh, PS, Welcome, were was open essential recovered recovered at that and time his from fromnon-examination but thethe nopossession Prosecution evidence was closed. His denfence effort possession was of puts put of the the in aaccused. question by accused.
PW-2&4is mark ofSomeone andwhether denial by the informed excise IO to simplicitor. Delhi
7. form the ask However, no defence evidence was led. Prakash PW-4 PS. anywas stated shopkeeper HC filled Uttam in or the notcross-examination Chand toatjoin the and spot.
them Ct orRam nothat effort sealed was ofpullanda put DHG in reached atwastheseal time atwith the of
5. Name of accused Tek Bahadur S/o Man Bahadur
11.spot. imprint arrest The prosecution of Accused of accused AK which andi.e.
is liquor
3. Prosecution examined 4 witnessess. PW-1also before was under
pouches with taking an the search obligation were IO. No handed of the member to accused HC show over Mulak with that toregarding them.
Rajthe case initials has property IO which took proved of R/o I-38, Welcome, Delhi out AK no was FIRexplanation 30 was notpouches in Ex.PW-1/Atempered the raiding has as andsample come till party.
it on reached liquor endorsement theThe record.
which accused in thewere Ex.PW-1/B excise wason kept apprehended laboratory theinRukka.
a green for atcolour achemical distancebag
6. Offence Complained or proved U/s 61(1)(a) Punjab Excise Act
9. and of analysis.HC 300/400
Uttam remaining Prosecution Chand meters pouches reached from
4. PW-3 Ct Kamal Kumar stated that on 20.04.99 has the were at not PS. the kept examined spot Publicin who apersons carried white MHC(M) were onecolour outsealed the to coming bag show investigation which and thatgoing pullanda case was withof
7. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty brought on this property seal AK along with form M-29 was handedwith the case.road.
from duly He HC a is sealed nearby not reached examined with Kabari at seal theshop.
by AK spot the along Both at prosecution. around were overform 8.00 sealed to His himM-29 PM. with examination by He wasseal MHC(M) cannot deposited AKvide was and tell
8. Arguments heard /Order reserved on 28.01.08 taken how essential with RC No.50/21 and he deposited the same facts him many into to in possession pouches the unfold Malkhanathe werealong real and recovered prosecution with sample scooter from pullanda inthevide theas Dicky and fards the excise form case and Ex.PW-2/A M-29 the property laboratory bag.
were on&B. sent was His the
9. Date of such order 28.01.08 Sample statement allegedly to excise seal laboratory. sealed was after recorded with use The seal was same day. The case property was not temperedbefore examination AK.
handed The 8.15over initials PMof to at MHC(M) him.
oftheinvestigating His spot as wasstatement by essential long the as officer itIO.Ex.PW-2/C He toare remained prove does not in
10.Final Order Acquitted was not AK that know itrecorded. case wasthat his possession. property for how theRukka investigating many waswas not copiesprepared tempered officer of excise and toasexplain form sent longweretoas that PS it prepared how through remained he bycome Ctthe inRam into IO.
his
5. possession Prakash The suggestion PW-2 Ctfor of with registration seal ishim.
Rajender denied bearing In ofthat stated case these words that nothing onupon circumstances AK.
which wasThere 01.04.99 recovered FIR he ispossibility was along noregistered.
from explanation with Ctthe of possession tempering Accused Satbir on the was on with was of record thearrested. patro the accused. tocase duty this onproperty Personal effect. cycle motor cannot search In these be andruled circumstances, arrest bearing out.
memosHence, registrationEx.PW-2/E his non-examination examination & 2/D. was No.Dl-1SL-5189 He of and
8. MHC(M) has essential I have identified reached heard and is 7.40 at fatal his Ld. theto non-examination APP, PMcase theatprosecution Ld. property Galidefence ascalls No.1, case counsel produced for as link Subhash adverse forin evidence the Park theExtn inference accused court iswhere not asand against complete. recovered aperused the secret 765432
12.prosecution. information from the Hence, entire the Ipossession have evidence wasnoreceived onthe Jaccused. hesitation of UtoDahold record. that GProsecution MPW-4 E Nprosecution person that T will Ct Satbir examined come has on hascorroborated 4scooter failed witnessess tobearing prove the in
10.its registration version order PW-4 case tostated of prove against PW-2 No.DL-5SJ-7491 initsthe in the case.
his chief accused chief PW-2&4 examination examination. from beyond are Janta the shadow that Colony witnessess formofexcise side reasonable to and was thewill recovery filled. go doubt towards PW-2 who and
6. I-Block, allegedly is PW-2 silent stated
1. accordingly The toWelcome apprehended thisineffect.
the via accused allegations are cross-examination isthe that Aon Photo bare accused. perusal Chowk acquitted 01.04.99Their ofatofthe that who cross-examination testimony 8.00 the canaccused offence PM at be ischarged. Main material apprehended wasofknown Road, PW-2&4 to prove File near on to be 80 shows immediate them the Plots,recovery before consignedthat Neartoraid.
they hand.
of are On alleged Record Photo He not this had Room.aware Chowk,liquor information seen of the pouches the Welcome,accused excise 4-5Delhi from passerby from form.
the a distance PW-2 were possession accused asked stated wasof found 50to of in paces join the in cross-examination them and accused. stopped but none possession Iofthe have ofscooter 229 that perused themheby agreed pouchescannot their placing of and identify testimony. country their went mademotor the away excise Their cycle without liquor form.
testimony meantacross disclosing So, for thehe saledoes scooter. cannot their not without names The inspire say any whether writing and ANNOUNCEDconfidence.
license addresses.
work itorwas IN was filled It done THE permit. They hasorcome not.
while reached After in PW-4 sitting usualthe at investigation 7.45 cross-examination stated under SURESH PM inthe at the80 electric cross-examination KUMAR Plot,ofGUPTA charge pole near PWS sheet on Photo that the was OPEN Chowk.
road accused that he COURT side.
does was OneNo ON scooter not 28.01.08 apprehended notice know rider was what was from given METROPOLITAN isapprehended excise the to public market format person place.
and 8.00failed PM who MAGISTRATE Thewhile refused towords identify coming to of join the on submitted U/s 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act.
KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
2. Accused put his appearance. Copies of does scooter them.
mouth excise form The of bearing PW-2 accused when registration that same was market was apprehended shown No.DL-5SJ-7491 was closed to him.
from It theis on challannot market. clear DELHI the inspire weresignal from Theconfidence the ofshops / supplied testimony informer. 28.01.08 to him.
were as that The already question Afterperson both closed. of ofclosing disclosed them hearing, Heare of didhis charge not market not name U/saware goattoas8.00 61(1)(a) of Kabari Tek the PM ofBahadur. fact Shop does that Punjabbut notExcise what One IO arise had military isat excise Actgone all.was colour Moreover, there.
form. bag He In framed these was does it hasrecovered againstnot circumstances come know him from on from whether thehis they 04.04.00testimony possession.
excise cannot by form depose of PW-2 my Ld. The was that bag that filled excise was Predecessor thein checked. to white form his presence whichwas colour heThe filled Dicky bag orinwas pleaded not.
the of not court.
the Rukka brought scooter guilty was In from these and sent was a kabari circumstances to also PS checked. claimed atshop 9.30byPM. trial. the the 229 examination The IO, pouches meaning suggestion Prosecution ofofthereby Desi HC is denied examined Sharab Uttam that 4 that shops Chand Masaledar nothing were was witnessess. essential were was openrecovered recovered at that andevidence Prosecution time his from from non-examination butthe the nopossession was effort possession wasof closed. puts put Hisof thedenfence the in aaccused. question by accused. PW-2&4 is mark ofSomeone and whether denialby the informed excise IO to simplicitor.
7. form the ask PW-4 PS. any was stated However, shopkeeper HC filled Uttam inor thenot no defence cross-examination Chand toevidence atjoin the and spot.
them Ctorled. was Ramnothat effort Prakash sealed wasof pullanda put DHG in reached atwas theseal time atwith the of
11.
3. arrest spot.
imprint The prosecution of Accused of accused ProsecutionAKexamined which and i.e. is liquor also before was 4 under pouches with taking an thesearch obligation were IO.PW-1 witnessess. No handed of the member to accused HC show overwith Mulakthat toregarding them.
the case Raj initials hasproperty IO which took provedof was out AK no FIRexplanation 30 was notpouches in tempered the raiding Ex.PW-1/A has as andsample come till party.
it on reached liquor the endorsement The record. which accused in thewere excise Ex.PW-1/Bwason kept apprehended laboratory theinRukka.
a green for atcolour achemical distance bag
9.
4. analysis. and of HC300/400 Uttam PW-3remaining Prosecution Chand meters Ct Kamal pouches reached fromhas Kumar the were atnot PS. thethat stated kept examined spot Public onin who apersons carried white MHC(M) 20.04.99 were colour outsealed one the to coming bag show investigation which and thatgoing pullanda case was of with property brought on this sealthe case.
AKroad. from duly He HC along ais sealed nearby not withreached examined with Kabari form at seal M-29theshop.
by AK spot wasthe along Both at prosecution. around handed with were overform 8.00 sealed to His M-29 PM.
him with examination by He was seal cannot deposited MHC(M) AKvide was and tell with taken how essential him many intoto RC No.50/21in possession pouches the unfold Malkhana and hethe were along real and recovered prosecution depositedwith sample the scooter from pullanda same facts inthe vide theas Dicky andfards the form excise case and Ex.PW-2/A M-29 the property bag.
were laboratory on&B. sent was His the to Sample statement allegedly excise same seal day.laboratory. sealed was after Therecorded with use property case The seal wasbefore examination AK.
handed The 8.15 wasover initials PM not of to at MHC(M) him.
oftheinvestigating tempered His spot as was statement by essential long the as officer itIO.
Ex.PW-2/C He toare prove remaineddoes not in that was not AK know itrecorded. case wasthat property for how his possession. theRukka investigating many waswas not copies prepared tempered officer of excise and toasexplain form sent longwere toas that PS it prepared how through remained he by come Ctthe inRam into IO.
his
5. possession Prakash The suggestion PW-2 Ctfor of with registration seal ishim.
Rajender denied bearing In ofthat stated case these words that nothing onupon circumstances AK.
which wasThere 01.04.99 recovered FIR he ispossibility was along noregistered.
from explanation with Ctthe of possession tempering Accused Satbir on the was on with was of record thearrested. patro the accused. tocase duty this onproperty Personal effect. cycle motor cannot search In these be andruled circumstances, arrest bearing out.
memosHence, registrationEx.PW-2/E his non-examination examination & 2/D. was No.Dl-1SL-5189 He of and
8. MHC(M) has essential I have identified reached heard and is 7.40 at fatal his Ld. theto non-examination APP, PMcase theatprosecution Ld. property Galidefence ascalls No.1, case counsel produced for as link Subhash adverse forin evidence the Park theExtn inference accused court iswhere not asand against complete. recovered aperused the secret 76543
12.prosecution. information from the Hence, entire the Ipossession have evidence wasnoreceived hesitation of ontherecord.
accused. that to ahold Prosecution person PW-4 that prosecution will Ct Satbir examined come has on hascorroborated 4scooter failed witnessess tobearing prove the in
10.its registration version order PW-4 case tostated of prove against PW-2 No.DL-5SJ-7491 initsthe in the case.
his chief accused chief PW-2&4 examination examination. from beyond are Janta the shadow that Colony witnessess formofexcise side reasonable to and was thewill recovery filled. go doubt towards PW-2 who and
6. accordingly I-Block, allegedly is PW-2 silentstated toWelcome apprehended thisineffect.
the via accused cross-examination isthe APhoto bare accused. perusal Chowk acquitted Their of ofthe that who cross-examination testimony thecanaccused offence be ischarged. material apprehended wasofknown PW-2&4 to prove File on to be shows immediate them the recovery before thattoraid. consigned they hand.
of are On alleged Record He not this had Room.aware liquor information seenofthe pouches the accused excise 4-5 from passerby from form.
the a distance PW-2 were possession asked stated of 50to of in paces join the themstopped and accused. cross-examination but none I the have ofscooter that perused themheby agreed cannot their placing and identify testimony. their wentmotor the away excise Their cycle without form.
testimony across disclosing So, thehe does scooter. cannot their not names The inspire say whether writing and confidence. ANNOUNCED addresses.
work it was INwas filled It done THE They hasorcome not.
while reached in PW-4 sitting the at 7.45 cross-examination stated under SURESHPMinthe at the 80 electric cross-examination KUMARPlot,ofGUPTA pole near PWSon Photo that the OPEN Chowk.
road accused that he COURT side.
does was OneNo ON scooter not 28.01.08 apprehended notice knowrider waswhat was from given METROPOLITAN isapprehended excise the to public market format person place.
and 8.00failed PM who MAGISTRATE The while refused towords identify coming to of join the on KARKARDOOMA COURTS, scooterform them.
mouth excise The of bearing PW-2 accused whenregistration that same was market was apprehended shown No.DL-5SJ-7491 was closed to him.
from does It theis onnot market. clear the inspire signal fromTheconfidence the ofshops testimony informer.
were as DELHI / 28.01.08 The person already question that bothclosed.
of ofclosing disclosed themHeare of didhis not market not name aware goattoas8.00 of Kabari Tek the PM Bahadur. fact Shop does that but notwhat One IO arise had military isatexcise gone all. colour Moreover, there.
form. bag He In was does it these hasrecovered not circumstances come know from from whether thehis they testimony possession. excise cannot form depose of PW-2 The was that bag that filled excise was thein checked. white form his presence was colour The filled Dicky bag orinwas not.
the of the scooter Rukka brought court. was Infrom these sent was a kabari circumstances to also PS checked. atshop 9.30byPM.
the the 229 examination The IO, pouches meaning suggestion ofofthereby Desi HC is denied Sharab Uttam that that shops Chand Masaledar nothing were was wererecovered was open essential recovered at that andtime his from from non-examination butthe the nopossession effort possession wasof puts put of thethe in aaccused. question by accused. PW-2&4 mark Someone and whether by the informed excise IO to
7. form the ask PW-4 PS. any was stated shopkeeper HC filled Uttam inor thenot cross-examination Chand toatjoin the and spot.
them CtorRam nothat effort Prakash sealed wasof pullanda put DHG in reached atwas theseal time atwith the of
11.arrest spot.
imprint The prosecution of Accused of accused AK which and i.e. is liquor also before wasunder pouches with taking an thesearch obligation were IO. Nohanded of the member to accused show overwith that toregarding them.
the caseinitials property IOwhich took of outexplanation AK no was 30 was notpouches in tempered the raiding has as sample come till party.
it on reached liquor the The record. which accused in thewere excise waskept apprehended laboratory in a green for atcolour achemical distance bag
9. analysis. and of HC300/400 Uttam remaining Prosecution Chand meters pouches reached fromhas the were atnot PS. thekept examined spot Public in who apersons carried white MHC(M)were colour out the to coming bag show investigation which and thatgoing case was of brought on this property the case.
road.
from duly He HC ais sealed nearby not reached examined with Kabari at seal theshop. by AK spot the along Both at prosecution. around with wereform 8.00 sealed His M-29 PM.
with examination He was seal cannot deposited AK was and tell takenhim how essential with many intoto in possession pouches the unfold Malkhana the were along real and recovered prosecution with sample scooter from pullanda facts the vide as Dicky andfards the form case and Ex.PW-2/A M-29 the property bag.
were &B. sent was His Sample statement allegedly to exciseseal laboratory. sealed was after recorded with use The seal wasbefore examination AK.
handed The 8.15 over initials PM of to at MHC(M) him.
oftheinvestigating His spotwas statement by essential theofficer IO.
Ex.PW-2/C He toare prove does not was know not AK that itrecorded.
case wasthat property for how theRukka investigating many waswas not copies prepared tempered officer of excise and toasexplain form sent longwere toas that PS it prepared how through remained he by come Ctthe inRam into IO.
his Prakash The possession suggestion for of with registration seal ishim.
denied bearing In ofthat case these words nothing upon circumstances AK.
which wasThere recovered FIR ispossibility wasnoregistered.
from explanation the of possession tempering Accused on the wasthearrested. of record with the accused. tocase thisproperty Personal effect. cannot search In these be andruled circumstances, arrestout.
memos Hence, Ex.PW-2/E hisnon-examination examination & 2/D. was He of
8. MHC(M) has essential I have identified heard and is fatal his Ld. theto non-examination APP, case the prosecution Ld. property defence ascalls case counsel produced for as link adverse forin evidence the theinference accused court is not asand against complete. recovered perused the 7654
12.prosecution. from the Hence, entire the Ipossession have evidence no hesitation of onthe record. accused. to hold Prosecution PW-4 that prosecution Ct Satbir examined has hascorroborated 4failed witnessess to prove the in
10.its version order PW-4 case tostated of prove against PW-2 initsthe in the case.
his chief accused chief PW-2&4 examination examination. beyond are the shadow thatwitnessess formofexcise reasonable to was the recovery filled. doubtPW-2 who and
6. accordingly allegedly is PW-2 silentstated toapprehended thisineffect.
the cross-examination accused isthe A acquitted bare accused. perusal Their of ofthe that cross-examination testimony the accused offence ischarged.
material wasofknown PW-2&4 to prove File to be shows them the recovery before thattothey consigned hand.
of are alleged Record He nothad Room.aware liquor seenofthe pouches the accused excise from from form.
the a distance PW-2 possession stated of 50of in paces the and stoppedI the accused. cross-examination havescooter that perused hebycannot their placing identify testimony. their motor the excise Their cycleform.
testimony acrossSo, thehe does scooter. cannot not The whether inspire say writing confidence. ANNOUNCED work it was INwas filled It done THE hasorcome not.
whilein PW-4 sitting the SURESH cross-examination stated underinthe the electric cross-examination KUMAR ofGUPTA pole PWSon that the OPEN road he accused that COURT side.
does wasNonot ON 28.01.08 apprehended notice know was what from given METROPOLITAN is excise the to public market formperson place.
and failed who MAGISTRATE The refused towords identify to of join the KARKARDOOMA COURTS, them. form mouth excise The of PW-2 accused whenthat same was market was apprehended shown was closed to him.
from does It theisnot market. clear inspire fromTheconfidence theshops testimony were as DELHI / 28.01.08 already question that bothclosed.
of ofclosing themHeare of didnot market notaware goatto8.00 of Kabari the PMfact Shop does that but notwhat IO arise had isatexcise gone all. Moreover, there.
form. HeIn does it these hasnot circumstances come know fromwhether thethey testimony excise cannot form depose of PW-2 was that that filled excise theinwhite form his presence was colour filled bag orinwas not.
the Rukka was brought court. Infrom these sent a kabari circumstances to PS atshop 9.30byPM.
the theexamination The IO, meaning suggestion ofthereby HC is denied Uttam that that shops Chand nothing were was was recovered open essential at that andtime his from non-examination butthenopossession effort wasof puts put thein aaccused. question by PW-2&4markand whether by theexcise IO to
7. form ask PW-4 any was stated shopkeeper filled inor thenot cross-examination toatjoin the spot. them or nothat effort sealed waspullanda put in atwas theseal time with of
11.arrest imprint The prosecution ofof accused AK which i.e. is also before wasunder with taking an thesearch obligation IO. Noof the member to accused showwith that regarding the caseinitials property which of AKexplanation no was was not in tempered the raiding has come till party.
it on reached the The record. accused in the excise was apprehended laboratory for at achemical distance
9. analysis. of HC300/400 Uttam Prosecution Chand meters reached fromhas theatnot PS. the examined spot Public whopersons carried MHC(M)were out the to coming show investigation and thatgoing case of on the this property case.
road.
duly He HC is sealed not reached examined with at seal theby AK spot the along at prosecution. around with form 8.00His M-29 PM.examination He wascannot deposited was tell how him essential with manyto in pouches the unfold Malkhana the were real and recovered prosecution samplefrom pullanda facts the as Dicky andthe form case andM-29 the property bag.
were sent was His statement allegedly to excise laboratory.
sealed was recorded with The sealbefore examination AK. The 8.15initials PM of at MHC(M) oftheinvestigating spotwas by essential theofficer IO. He toare prove does not not know AK that itcase wasthat property for how the investigating many was not copies tempered officer of excise toasexplain form longwere as thatit prepared how remained he by come the in into IO.
his The suggestion possession of with seal ishim.
denied bearing Inthat these words nothing circumstances AK.wasThere recovered ispossibility no from explanation the of possession tempering on the of thethe record with accused.
tocase thisproperty effect. cannot In these be ruled circumstances, out. Hence,hisnon-examination examination was of
8. MHC(M) essential I have heard and is fatal his Ld.to non-examination APP, the prosecution Ld. defencecalls case counsel for as link adverse forevidence the inference accused is not and against complete. perused the 765
12.prosecution. the Hence, entireI have evidence no hesitation on record.to hold Prosecution that prosecution examinedhas4failed witnessess to prove in
10.its order PW-4 case tostated prove against initsthe the case.
chief accused PW-2&4 examination beyond are the shadow thatwitnessess formofexcise reasonable to was the recovery filled. doubtPW-2 who and allegedly is silent toapprehended accordingly this effect. isthe accused A acquitted bare accused. perusal Their of ofthe cross-examination testimony offence ischarged.
material of PW-2&4 to prove File be shows the recovery thattothey consigned of are alleged Record not aware Room.liquorofpouches the excise from form.
the PW-2 possession stated of in the accused. I have that cross-examination perused he cannot their identify testimony.
the excise Their form.
testimony So, he does cannot not inspire say whether confidence. ANNOUNCED it was filled It hasorcome IN THE not. in PW-4 the SURESH cross-examination stated in the cross-examination KUMAR ofGUPTA PWS that OPEN he COURT accused that does was not ON 28.01.08 apprehended know what from METROPOLITAN is excise the market form place.
and failed MAGISTRATE The towords identify of the KARKARDOOMA COURTS, mouth form excise of PW-2 whenthat samemarket was shown was closed to him.does It isnot clear inspire from confidence the testimony as DELHI / 28.01.08 question that both of ofclosing them are of not market aware at 8.00 of the PMfact does thatnotwhat ariseisatexcise all. Moreover, form. In it has circumstances these come from thethey testimony cannot depose of PW-2that that excise the white form was colour filled baginwas the broughtInfrom court. thesea kabari circumstances shop bythe theexamination IO, meaningofthereby HC Uttam that shops Chandwere was open at that essential andtime his non-examination but no effort wasputs put in a question by PW-2&4 markand whether by theexcise IO to ask any form wasshopkeeper filled or nottoatjoin the spot. them or no effort was put in at the time of
11.arrest The prosecution of accused i.e. is also before under taking an search obligation of the to accused show that regarding case property which no explanation was not tempered has come till it on reached the record.
in the excise laboratory for chemical
9. analysis. HC Uttam Prosecution Chand reached hasatnot the examined spot who carried MHC(M) out the to show investigation that case of this case.duly property He is sealed not examined with seal by AKthe along prosecution. with form His M-29examination was deposited was essential with him to in the unfold Malkhana the real andprosecution sample pullanda facts as andthe form caseM-29 property were sent was allegedly to excise laboratory.
sealed with The seal examination AK. The initials of MHC(M) of investigating was essential officertoare prove not AK itcase that was property for the investigating was not tempered officer toasexplain long as thatithow remained he come in into his possession of with seal him.
bearing In these wordscircumstances AK. There ispossibility no explanation of tempering on the recordthetocase with thisproperty effect. cannot In these be ruled circumstances, out. Hence,hisnon-examination examination was of essential and MHC(M) is fatal his to non-examination the prosecutioncalls case for as link adverse evidence inference is notagainst complete.
the 76
12.prosecution. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that prosecution has failed to prove
10.itsPW-4 casestated against in the the chief accused examination beyond shadow that formofexcise reasonable was filled.
doubtPW-2 and is silent to this accordingly effect. isA acquitted accused bare perusal of ofthe cross-examination offence charged.of PW-2&4 File be shows thattothey consigned are Room.
Record not aware of the excise form. PW-2 stated in the cross-examination that he cannot identify the excise form. So, he cannot say whether it was ANNOUNCED filled or not. PW-4 SURESH IN THE stated in the cross-examination KUMAR GUPTA OPEN that he COURT does notON 28.01.08 know METROPOLITAN what is excise form and failed MAGISTRATE to identify the KARKARDOOMA COURTS, excise form when same was shown to him. It is clear from the testimony DELHI / 28.01.08 that both of them are not aware of the fact that what is excise form. In these circumstances they cannot depose that excise form was filled in the court. In these circumstances the examination of HC Uttam Chand was essential and his non-examination puts a question mark whether excise form was filled or not at the spot.
11. The prosecution is also under an obligation to show that case property was not tempered till it reached in the excise laboratory for chemical analysis. Prosecution has not examined MHC(M) to show that case property duly sealed with seal AK along with form M-29 was deposited with him in the Malkhana and sample pullanda and form M-29 were sent to excise laboratory. The examination of MHC(M) was essential to prove that case property was not tempered as long as it remained in his possession with him. In these circumstances possibility of tempering with the case property cannot be ruled out. Hence, non-examination of MHC(M) is fatal to the prosecution case as link evidence is not complete.
712. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and accordingly accused is acquitted of the offence charged. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA OPEN COURT ON 28.01.08 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI / 28.01.08