Delhi District Court
State vs Meera on 20 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. KRITIKA JAIN, JMFC-03, SOUTH WEST
DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. : DLSW02-031026-2022
FIR No. : 614/2021
U/s : 33/38 Delhi Excise Act
P.S. : Bindapur
State v/s Meera
a) Name & address of the : HC Rajender Parsad
complainant
b) Name & address of accused : Meera
W/o Sh. Ram Swaroop
R/o Plot no. 8, Near DPS
School, Village Matiala,
Delhi.
c) Date of Commission of : 05.07.2021
offence
d) Offence complained of : 33/38 Delhi Excise Act
e) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
f) Ld. APP for the State : Sh. Manish Kaushik
g) Final Order : Acquittal
h) Date of Institution : 13.07.2022
i) Judgment Pronounced on : 20.01.2026
JUDGMENT
Brief facts
1. The prosecution version in brief is that on 05.07.2021, at about 11:40 PM at Plot no. 8, DPS School, Village Matiala, New Delhi, accused Meera was found to be in possession of 50 quarter bottles of Falcons Santra Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only, 180 ml each which were unlawfully imported, transported or manufactured or knowing the prescribed duty not to had been paid without any permit or licence.
State v/s Meera Page No. 1 of 16 FIR No. 614/2021Complainant/ informant HC Rajender Parsad reported the aforesaid incident to duty officer at PS Bindapur. An FIR bearing no. 614/2021 u/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act was registered at PS Bindapur. Investigation of the case was handed over to Investigating Officer ASI Parmender Kumar.
Proceedings before the Court
2. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet u/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act was filed against the present accused, i.e., Meera. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused was summoned to face trial.
3. On her appearance, a copy of chargesheet along with documents were supplied to the accused in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC'). On finding prima facie case against the accused, a charge under section 33/38 Delhi Excise Act was framed against her, to which she had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the trial, prosecution has examined the following witnesses:
(i) PW-1 W/HC Anita had deposed that she was posted at PS Bindapur as W/Ct. She alongwith HC Rajinder reached at the spot and met with Ct. Mahesh who produced apprehended lady, namely, Meera W/o Ram Swaroop R/o Plot no. 8, Near DPS School, Village Matiala, New Delhi. IO seized the recovered illicit liquor, i.e., 50 quarter bottles of Falcons Santra Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only, 180 ml each from the State v/s Meera Page No. 2 of 16 FIR No. 614/2021 possession of accused vide memo Ex.PW1/A and bearing her signature at point A. IO sealed the same with seal of RP and handed over the seal to Ct. Mahesh after use vide Ex.PW1/B and bearing her signature at point A. IO filled M-29 form at the spot in her presence. IO prepared tehrir and got the FIR registered through Ct. Mahesh. IO prepared site plan of place of instance at the instance of Ct. Mahesh. IO interrogated the accused and recorded her disclosure statement vide Ex.PW1/C and bearing her signature at point C. IO served notice U/s 41A Cr.PC. to accused Meera and released her from the spot after bound down. They shifted the case property to the PS and IO deposited the same in the malkhana alongwith relevant documents. She could identify the accused as well as the case property if shown to her. Thereafter, it is submitted by ld. counsel for the accused that the accused shall not dispute her identity & evidence recorded in her absence in the present matter throughout the trial. MHC(M) produced destruction order no. Con. 23567/2021/4915 dt. 10.08.2022. Same was taken on record and was Ex.P-1 (OSR). MHC(M) also produced sample of case property, i.e., one quarter bottle of of Falcons Santra Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only, 180 ml, same was shown to the witness and witness correctly identified the same. Same is Ex.P-2. The said witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.State v/s Meera Page No. 3 of 16 FIR No. 614/2021
(ii) PW-2 Ct. Mahesh had deposed that he was posted at PS Bindapur as Ct. On 05.07.2021, at about 11:40 PM, he reached in front of plot no. 8, near DPS School, Matiala where one lady was coming from the side of DPS School alongwith heavy white plastic katta on her head. Upon seeing him, she was walking towards plot no. 8, Village Matiala. Upon suspicious, he stopped her and checked the plastic katta after putting down the same. He found that it was filled with quarter bottles of illicit liquor and came to know the name and address of said apprehended lady were as Meera W/o Sh. Ram Swaroop R/o Plot no. 8, near DPS School, village Matiala, New Delhi aged about 59 years old. He shared the said information to DO of PS. HC Rajendra alongwith lady Ct. Anita reached at the spot. He produced the apprehended lady alongwith recovered illicit liquor before him. IO HC Rajendra asked 4-5 public passers persons to join the investigation but none agreed and left the place with their personal reason and without disclosing their names and addresses. IO checked the plastic katta and upon counting, he found 50 plastic quarter bottles of Falcons Santra Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only 180 ml each. IO took one quarter bottle as a samples and put back remaining quarter bottles in the plastic katta and tied with opening of plastic katta and sample with white cloth and sealed with the seal of RP. IO filled M-
29 form at the spot. IO handed over seal after used to State v/s Meera Page No. 4 of 16 FIR No. 614/2021 him vide memo already Ex.PW1/B and bearing his signature at point B. IO seized the samples as well as remaining case property vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/A and bearing his signature at point B. IO recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A. IO prepared tehrir & got the FIR registered through him. He came back at the spot and handed over computerised copy of FIR and original tehrir to the IO. IO prepared site plan of place of incident at his instance Ex.PW2/B. After interrogation, IO recorded disclosure statement of accused vide already Ex.PW1/C and bearing his signature at point B. IO served notice U/s 41A Cr.PC. upon the accused and released her from the spot after bound down her. They shifted the case property to the PS and the case property was deposited alongwith form M-29 & copy of seizure memo and other relevant documents at malkhana of PS. Thereafter, it is submitted by Ld. counsel for the accused that the accused shall not dispute her identity & evidence recorded in her absence in the present matter throughout the trial. The destruction order of case property, i.e., Con. 23567/2021/4915 dt. 10.08.2022 already placed on record and is already Ex.P-1 (OSR). MHC(M) also produced sample of case property, i.e., one quarter bottle of of Falcons Santra Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only, 180 ml, same was shown to the witness and witness correctly identified the same.
State v/s Meera Page No. 5 of 16 FIR No. 614/2021Same is already Ex.P-2. The said witness was cross- examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
(iii) PW-3 ASI Surender had deposed that on 28.07.2021, he was posted at PS Bindapur as HC. He took sealed exhibits (sealed with the seal of RP) of present case vide RC no. 143/21/21 (Mark A) dt. 28.07.2021 from MHC(M) Bindapur alongwith form M-29 and copy of seizure memo and other relevant documents from MHC(M) CP of PS Bindapur and deposited the same at Excise office, Vikas Bhawan, ITO for result analysis. He handed over the receipt of depositing the samples to MHC(M) on the same day. The exhibits were not tampered with during the time they were in his possession. The said witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
(iv) PW-4 ASI Parminder Kumar had deposed that he was posted at PS Bindapur as ASI. The further investigation of the present case was marked to him. He recorded statement of witnesses, namely, HC Surender and HC Sanjay U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He collected the result of analysis of sample of case property from MHC(M) of PS Bindapur. After completion of investigation, he prepared chargesheet of the present case and filed before the Hon'ble court. The said witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
(v) PW-5 ASI Jagdish Prasad had deposed that on 05.07.2021, he was posted at PS Bindapur as MHC(M) State v/s Meera Page No. 6 of 16 FIR No. 614/2021 CP. On the directions of IO, namely, HC Rajendra, he collected sealed case property and sealed samples with the seal of RP alongwith copy of seizure memo and form M-29 and other relevant documents. Same were deposited at Malkhana of PS by him vide mud No. 3167/2021, the relevant record is Ex.P-1 (OSR). On 28.07.21, he handed over the sealed exhibits alongwith relevant documents vide RC No. 143/21/21 [Ex.P-2 (OSR)] to HC Surender for depositing the same at Excise Office ITO for result analysis. Accordingly, HC Surender went Excise office and deposited the same. He handed over him the receipt of depositing on the same day. The exhibits were not tampered with during the time they were in his possession. The said witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
(vi) PW-6 ASI Rajender Prasad had deposed that he was posted at PS Bindapur as HC. Upon receipt of DD no. 138A about the recovery of illicit liquor, he alongwith W/Ct. Anita reached at the spot, i.e., DPS School, Matiala and met with Ct. Mahesh who produced accused Meera alongwith recovered illicit liquor before them. He asked 4-5 public passers and made them request to join the investigation. But none of them agreed and left the place with disclosing their personal reasons and without disclosing their names and addresses. Without wastage of time, he counted the illicit liquor and found 50 quarter bottles of Falcons Santra Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only 180 ML State v/s Meera Page No. 7 of 16 FIR No. 614/2021 each. He took one quarter bottle as sample from each recovered brand and put back remaining quarter bottles into the same plastic katta. He tied the sample as well as opening of white plastic kattas with piece of white cloth and sealed with seal of RP. He filled M-29 form at the spot Ex.PW6/A. He seized the sample as well as remaining illicit liquor vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/A and bearing his signature at point C. He recorded statement of Ct. Mahesh already Ex.PW2/A and bearing his signature at point B and prepared tehrir Ex.PW6/B bearing his signature at point A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Mahesh. He prepared site plan of place of incident already Ex.PW2/B bearing his signature at point B. He had also prepared handing over memo of seal already Ex.PW1/B bearing his signature at point C. He interrogated the accused and recorded her disclosure statement same was already Ex.PW1/C bearing his signature at point C. He served notice U/s 41A Cr.P.C. Ex.PW6/C bearing his signature at point A. He released the accused after bound down. They shifted the case property and deposited at malkhana alongwith relevant documents. He could identify the case property as well as accused, if shown to him. Accused was correctly identified by the witness. Thereafter, destruction order of case property is already placed on record and already Ex.P- 1 (OSR). MHC(M) produced sample of the case property, i.e., one quarter bottle of Falcons Santra Desi State v/s Meera Page No. 8 of 16 FIR No. 614/2021 Sharab for sale in Haryana only 180 ML. After seeing, witness correctly identified the case property and same is already Ex.P-2. The said witness was cross- examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
5. Vide separate statement of the accused U/s 294 Cr.P.C., she had admitted the genuineness of the FIR bearing no. 614/2021 without contents, DD no. 53A and 138A both dated 05.07.2021 and Excise Control Laboratory Result. The above-said documents were exhibited as Ex. A-1 to Ex. A-4 Respectively. Accordingly, the concerned witnesses were dropped by the prosecution.
6. The prosecution evidence was closed and thereafter the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was put to her, which she had denied to be correct and submitted that she was innocent and falsely implicated. The accused chose not to lead any evidence in her defence.
7. It is argued by Sh. Manish Kaushik, Ld. APP for the State that it is clear from the statement of the complainant and other witnesses as well as the documents appearing on record that the accused was in possession of 50 quarter bottles of Falcons Santra Desi Sharab for sale in haryana only 180 ml each of illicit liquor which were unlawfully imported, transported and manufactured or knowing the prescribed duty not to had been paid without any permit or licence. He has thus submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and she be, State v/s Meera Page No. 9 of 16 FIR No. 614/2021 therefore, held guilty and convicted for the above-said offence.
8. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and since nothing incriminating has appeared against the accused, therefore, acquitted for the offence charged.
9. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel at length, perused the record, went through the relevant provisions of law and gave my thoughts to the matter.
Findings of the Court
10. It is a well settled principle of criminal law that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
11. The first argument of Ld. Counsel for the accused is that since no independent witness has been joined at the time of investigation, it is, therefore, difficult to believe the prosecution version as it creates a doubt on the veracity of the statement of police witnesses.
12. This court has given its thoughts to the above contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused. Perusal of the examination of the witness PW-1 W/HC Anita, PW-2 Ct. Mahesh, PW-3 ASI Surender, PW-4 ASI Parminder Kumar, PW-5 ASI Jagdish Prasad and PW-6 ASI Rajender Prasad reveals that PW-6 ASI Rajender Prasad had asked 4-5 public persons to join the State v/s Meera Page No. 10 of 16 FIR No. 614/2021 investigation, but none of them had agreed. Thus, it is not the case of the prosecution that no public person was present at or near the spot of recovery. However, it is equally true that no steps are shown to have been taken to note down the names and addresses of those persons. It is a well settled proposition of law that non-joining of public witness throws doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. Section 100 (4) of the CrPC also casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society. However, no public person has been joined by the IO in the present case. In a case titled as Nanak Chand Vs. State of Delhi, 1990 SCC OnLine Del 469, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"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 reliancebut 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.'' (Emphasis supplied)
13. In the present case also, non-joining any public person as a witness creates doubt on the case of the prosecution. Although, this Court is conscious of the fact that it is a well settled law that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non-joining of public witnesses as they keep themselves away from the Court State v/s Meera Page No. 11 of 16 FIR No. 614/2021 unless it is inevitable, however, in the present case, it is not only the absence of public witnesses which raises a doubt on the prosecution version but there are other circumstances too, as discussed in the later part of the judgment, which raise suspicion over the prosecution case.
14. Perusal of the record further reveals that there is a delay of about twenty days in sending the samples to the Excise Control Laboratory for examination. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled Rishi Dev @ Onkar Singh v State (Crl. A. No. 757/2000) decided on 01.05.2008 has observed that to prevent the possibility of tampering with the samples, it is desirable that the samples are sent to the CFSL at the earliest. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment runs as under:
"The sample that is kept in a police malkhana, under the seals of the police officers themselves, is still definitely under the control of those police officers. There is every possibility that the samples could be tampered and again re-sealed by the very same officers by again affixing their seals. It is to prevent this from happening that earlier the sample is sent for testing to the CFSL the better."
15. In the instant case, alleged recovery was made on 05.07.2021 yet the samples were sent to the Excise Control Laboratory for examination on 28.07.2021, i.e. after about twenty days. No explanation has been given by the IO for the said delay. The possibility of tampering with the samples cannot be ruled out especially keeping in mind the fact that the seal after use was not handed over to an independent witness and remained State v/s Meera Page No. 12 of 16 FIR No. 614/2021 in the possession of police only. Thus, it creates a doubt on the prosecution version.
16. Perusal of the tehrir prepared by ASI Rajender Prasad. ASI Rajender Prasad reveals that he had first prepared the seizure memo of the case property Ex. PW-1/A as well as Form M- 29 and after that rukka was prepared and sent to the police station for registration of FIR and thereafter, present FIR was registered. It is, therefore, clear that the seizure memo of the illicit liquor and Form M-29 were prepared before the rukka was handed over to the police official for registration of the FIR. The FIR was thus, registered after the preparation of the seizure memo of the case property which is Ex. PW-1/A as well as Form M-29, however, surprisingly, seizure memo of the case property Ex. PW-1/A as well as Form M- 29 bear the FIR number and it is thus, amazing since the number of the FIR could have come to his knowledge only after a copy of the FIR was brought to the spot. The number of FIR in no circumstances could have been mentioned by PW-6 on seizure memo and Form M-29, which came into existence before registration of the FIR. However, as discussed above, seizure memo of the case property Ex. PW-1/A as well as Form M- 29 bear the FIR number and case details. In this context, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in one of the case titled Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi Administration, 1987 SCC OnLine Del 290, has observed as under in paragraph 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 State v/s Meera Page No. 13 of 16 FIR No. 614/2021 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, PW11/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. 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 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." (Emphasis supplied)
17. In another case titled Mohd. Hashim v. State, 1999 SCC OnLine Del 859, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with an appeal under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has also observed about the discrepancy, i.e., appearance of FIR number on seizure memo and other documents before registration of FIR and it runs as under:
"... Surprisingly, the secret information (Ex. PW7/A) received by the Sub-Inspector Narender Kumar Tyagi (PW-
State v/s Meera Page No. 14 of 16 FIR No. 614/2021
7), the notice under Section 50 of the Act (Ex. PW5/A) alleged to have been served on the appellant, the seizure memo (Ex.
PW1/A) and the report submitted under State v. Om Prakash Section 57 of the Act (Ex. PW7/D) bear the number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B). The number of the FIR (Ex.
PW4/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 circumstance number of the FIR (Ex.
PW4/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. PW4/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." (Emphasis supplied)
18. Let this court now analyse the evidence appearing on record keeping in mind the above judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In the present case, PW-6 ASI Rajender Prasad, who had prepared the documents in question, has categorically mentioned in the tehrir which has been prepared by him that he had prepared the seizure memo Ex. PW-1/A and Form M-29 before the tehrir was prepared. In such a scenario, it remains unexplained as to how the FIR No. 614/2021 and its details figure on the top of the document Ex.PW-1/A. This creates serious doubt on the prosecution version and alleged recovery of illicit liquor and it leads to State v/s Meera Page No. 15 of 16 FIR No. 614/2021 only one conclusion that either the said document was prepared later on or that the FIR was registered earlier in point of time. In both the aforesaid eventualities, a reasonable doubt has been raised on the version of the prosecution.
19. Thus, in light of the above discussion which throws doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution version, this court is of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that a katta which contained illicit liquor was recovered from the possession of the accused. The accused Meera is, therefore, acquitted of the offence u/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act.
20. This judgment contains 16 pages and the same has been pronounced by the undersigned in open court today and each page bears my signatures.
21. Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of District Courts, Dwarka forthwith.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Digitally TODAY, i.e., On 20.01.2026 KRITIKA signed by KRITIKA JAIN Date: JAIN 2026.01.20 16:51:58 +0530 Kritika Jain Judicial Magistrate First Class-03 South-West District/New Delhi 20.01.2026 State v/s Meera Page No. 16 of 16 FIR No. 614/2021