Delhi District Court
State vs Kailash on 6 November, 2007
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 239/99
PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi
U/s 61 of Pb .Excise Act, 1914
IN THE COURT OF DR.SHAHABUDDIN METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE:COURT ROOM NO.105, ROHINI COURTS DELHI
State vs Kailash
FIR No : 239/99
PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi
U/s 61 of Pb .Excise Act, 1914
JUDGMENT
A. SL. No. of the case : 193/3
B. Date of Institution in : 26.10.1999
the court
C. Date of commission of : 12.03.1999
offence
D. Name of the : HC Sh. Satbir Singh
complainant
E. Name of the accused , : Kailash S/o Sh. Jai Singh
his parentage and R/o C-90 Hari Enclave,
residence Sultan Puri, Delhi
F. Offence complained of : U/s 61 of Punjab Excise
or proved Act, 1914
G. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
H. Final Order : Acquitted
I. Date on which : 06.11.2007
judgment reserved
J. Date of such judgment : 06.11.2007
Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 239/99
PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi
U/s 61 of Pb .Excise Act, 1914
K) BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The main prosecution case against the accused is that on 12.03.99 at about 8.10 PM at Main Road Puliya near Nithari Village, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Sultanpuri Delhi, the accused was found in possession of a plastic bag containing 120 pouches of country made liquor of the brand Angoori Masaledar Desi Sharab without having any license / permit and in contravention of a Delhi Administration Notification in this regard. Hence, a chargesheet was filed against the accused after completion of entire investigation for the offence U/s 61 of Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (in short called as Punjab Ex. Act hereinafter).
2. Accused appeared in the court and he was supplied the copies of documents relied upon in the chargesheet as per mandate of section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( in short called as Cr.P.C hereinafter).
3. On 29.09.2000, a charge was framed against the accused for the offence U/s 61 of Punjab Ex.Act to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 239/99 PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 61 of Pb .Excise Act, 1914
4. From the side of prosecution, PW1 HC Prahlad Singh and PW2 HC Devender Pal were examined and then remaining prosecution evidence (in short P/E) was closed.
5. On 06.06.2007, statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the allegations against him as false and incorrect but he did not want to lead defence evidence.
6. Final arguments were heard today on 06.11.2007 from Ld. APP for State and from Ld. Defence counsel for the accused.
7. The main submissions of Ld. APP for State were to the effect that on the basis of entire material on record, the case stands well proved against the accused for the offence U/s 61 of Punjab Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt and that he should be punished strictly as per law.
8. On the other hand, the main submissions of the Ld. Defence counsel were to the effect that accused was falsely implicated in this case; that nothing was recovered from his possession; that no independent and reliable person of the locality was joined by investigating officer (in short I/O) Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 239/99 PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 61 of Pb .Excise Act, 1914 during investigation nor produced for evidence during trial of this case; that he was called in the police station on a false excuse and lateron this false case was planted upon him; that there are several material contradictions in the depositions of witnesses examined in this case. On the basis of these submissions mainly, acquittal of the accused was prayed for.
9. I perused the entire judicial file minutely in view of the above mentioned rival submissions.
10. Before proceeding further on the merits of this case, I refer to the relevant provisions of section 61 of Punjab Excise Act for which the charge was framed against the accused in this matter.
11. The relevant portion of section 61 of Punjab Excise Act is to the following effect:-
"61.(1) Penalty for unlawful import, export, transport, manufacture, possession, etc. -- Whoever, in contravention of any section of this Act or of any rule, notification issued or given there-under or order made, or of any license, permit or pass granted under this Act.--
a) Imports, exports, transports, manufactures, Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 239/99 PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 61 of Pb .Excise Act, 1914 collects or possesses any (intoxicant); or
b) constructs or works any distillery or brewery; or
c) uses, keeps or has in his possession any materials, still, utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever, for the purpose o manufacturing any (intoxicant) other than tari:
shall be punishable for every such offence with imprisonment for a term which may be extend to (three years) [ and with fine upto two thousand rupees and if found in possession of a working still for the manufacture of any (intoxicant) shall be punishable with the minimum sentence of six months imprisonment and fine of two hundred rupees]."
12. Now turning to the evidence on record, only two PWs have been examined in this case on behalf of State. I have carefully gone through their testimonies. There are several material contradictions in their depositions. They have admitted that no independent and reliable person of the locality was joined by the I/O during investigation. There are several other material contradictions also in their depositions. No satisfactory explanation has come on record as to why no independent and reliable person of locality was joined by the I/O during investigation of this matter. Even the excise laboratory report has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 239/99 PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 61 of Pb .Excise Act, 1914
13. In view of the above mentioned discussion and on the basis of entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution side has miserably failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offence u/s 61 of Punjab Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Hence, accused is entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, accused Kailash S/o Shri Jai Singh is hereby acquitted for the offence U/s 61 of Punjab Excise Act. His bail bonds are discharged and his surety also discharged. Case property be destroyed / disposed of as per rules after expiry of period of appeal / revision, as the case may be. File be consigned to record room as per rules. ANNOUNCED AND DICTATED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 06.11.2007 ( DR. SHAHABUDDIN ) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROHINI COURTS DELHI Contd....P/Next page