Delhi District Court
State vs . : Parmod @ Moghal on 27 June, 2023
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. AISHWARYA SHARMA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE01, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. : PARMOD @ Moghal
FIR No : 144/19
U/s : 33 Delhi Excise Act
P.S. : PALAM VILLAGE
1. Criminal Case No. : 17111/2019
2. Date of commission of offence : 28.03.2019
3. Date of institution of the case : 09.10.2019
4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name of accused, parentage & Address : PRAMOD @ Moghal
S/o Sh. Rohtash Khokhar
R/o WZ2223, Palam
Village, New Delhi
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 : 06.06.2023
9. Final order : Acquitted
10. Date of final order : 27.06.2023
JUDGMENT
1. The accused is facing trial for offences U/S 33 Delhi Excise Act. The genesis of the prosecution story is that on 28.03.2019 at about 9:30 PM at House number 65, Adarsh Gali, Near Jhod, behind pocket 1, Palam Village, Delhi, the accused was found in possession of two plastic bags/katta, out of which, each bag having 96 quarter bottles (total 192 quarter bottles). The criminal law was set into motion by registration of FIR against the accused and FIR No. 144/2019 St. Vs. Parmod @ Moghal 2 investigation into the case began. After completion of the investigation, the present chargesheet was filed for conducting trial of the accused persons for the alleged offences.
2. After taking cognizance of the offences, the copies of chargesheet were supplied to accused persons in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. The arguments on charges were heard and charge for offence U/S33 Delhi Excise Act were 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 six prosecution witnesses.
4. The proceedings U/S 294 Cr.P.C. were conducted wherein accused admitted the factum of registration of FIR EX. A1 and Excise Laboratory Result EX.A2, along with DD No. 52 B EX. A3 and DD No. 54 B EX. A4 on record. Pursuant the admission made by accused of these documents, witnesses at Sr. No. 2,6 and 7 were 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 prosecution witnesses, offence U/S33 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 FIR No. 144/2019 St. Vs. Parmod @ Moghal 3 planted upon him. Arguing further, Ld. counsel has interalia submitted that no public witnesses were joined by the police officials during investigation. 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 defence, let us discuss the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses in brief.
8. PW1 Ct. Om Prakash Yadav is the complainant, who deposed that on 28.03.2019 he was posted at PS Palam Village as Constable and on that day, he was present in beat no.5, Palam Village along with Ct. Sunil. He stated that one secret informer met them and informed that one person is putting carton boxes of illicit liquor at Aadarsh Gali, Near Pocket 1, at house no.65B thus, he along with Ct. Sunil went there and one person namely Pramod (who was correctly identified by this witness) was placing plastic kattas filled with illicit liquor in his room and when he looked inside the room, he saw another plastic katta filled with quarter bottles of illicit liquor make asli Santra, Masala Desi Sarab for sale in Haryana only. He stated that he shared the said information with DO PS Palam Village and ASI Mahender reached at the spot to whom they handed over the custody of the accused and case property. He stated that IO tried to join some public persons in the investigation but all left the spot after assigning their personal reason and thereafter, IO checked the plastic katta and they were found containing total 192 quarter bottles of Asli Santra, Masaledar Desi Sarab for sale in Haryana only, each katta containing 96 quarter bottles. He stated that IO FIR No. 144/2019 St. Vs. Parmod @ Moghal 4 took out one quarter bottle from each katta as sample bottle and sealed them with the seal of SS, the remaining 190 quarter bottle were equally distributed in two plastic kattas and both kattas were sealed with the seal of SS and the seal after use was handed over to Ct. Sunil and the case property was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. He stated that IO recorded his statement Ex.PW1/B and got the FIR registered through Ct. Sunil. He stated that accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/C and his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW1/D and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW1/E and thereafter, the accused was medically examined and sent to lockup. He stated that then IO recorded his statement. This witness identified the case property produced by MHCM Ex. P1 and Ex.P2.
9. PW2 HC Sunil deposed on the same lines as that of PW1 and same is not being reproduced so as to avoid repetition. He also deposed that the sample seal of SS after it's use was handed over to him.
10. PW3 Ct. Chet Ram deposed that on 29.03. 2019, he took the sealed samples of case property from the Malkhana to ITO FSL and till the time the case property was in his possession, it was not tampered with.
11. PW 4 SI Mahender Bhardwaj is the IO in present case, who deposed that on 28.03.2019, he was posted as ASI at PS Palam village and on that day, he received DD No.54B of the recovery of the illicit liquor at H. No.65B, Aadarsh Gali behind Pocket I Palam Village, thus he went to the spot where he met Ct. Om Prakash and Ct. Sunil alongwith accused. He stated that the accused and case property were handed over to him. He stated that he checked the plastic sacks and both sacks were found 96 quarter bottles each of Asli Santra FIR No. 144/2019 St. Vs. Parmod @ Moghal 5 Masaledar Desi Sarab for sale in Haryana only. He stated that he took out one quarter bottle each from two sacks as sample bottles and tied their mouth with white cloth and then sealed with the seal of SS and remaining quarter bottles were kept in respective sacks only and sacks were also sealed with the seal of SS and the seal was handed over to Ct. Sunil after use. He stated that the Excise Form Ex. PW4/A was filled by him at the spot. He stated that thereafter he seized the case property and sample bottles vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point B. He stated that he recorded the statement of Ct. Om Prakash Ex.PW1/B bearing his signature at point B and prepared the rukka Ex.PW4/B bearing his signature at point A and handed over the same to Ct. Sunil for registration of FIR. He stated that Ct. Sunil went to the PS and after getting the FIR registered, returned to the spot and handed over the copy of the FIR and rukka to him. He stated that he prepared site plan Ex.PW4/C bearing his signature at point A and formally arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D both bearing his signature at point B. He stated that he recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide memo Ex.PW1/E bearing his signature at point B. This witness correctly identified the accused and case property.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S313 Cr.P.C.:
12. Statement of the accused U/SSection 281/313 Cr.P.C. was recorded separately in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to him. The accused controverted and denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Accused further opted to not lead evidence in his defence, hence, DE was closed.
FIR No. 144/2019St. Vs. Parmod @ Moghal 6 APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:
13. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both the parties. Accused Parmod @ Moghal has been indicted for the offence U/S33 of Delhi Excise Act.
14. 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; 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."FIR No. 144/2019
St. Vs. Parmod @ Moghal 7
15. 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. ........."
16. It is 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 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 prerequisite 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.
FIR No. 144/2019St. Vs. Parmod @ Moghal 8
i). Doubtful Seizure Memo and Form M29.
17. A careful reading of the testimony of PW's 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, had prepared the rukka/tehrir Ex. PW4/B and handed over the same to Ct. Sunil, 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 M29 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 only after a copy of the FIR was brought to the spot by Ct. Sunil. Thus, ordinarily, the FIR number and date should not find mention in the seizure memo and Form M29, both of which documents came into existence before registration of the FIR. However, quite surprisingly, perusal of seizure memo and Form M29 reflects the mentioning of the full particulars of the FIR thereupon, which fact has remained unexplained on behalf of the prosecution. 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.
18. 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 FIR No. 144/2019 St. Vs. Parmod @ Moghal 9 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 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."
19. The aforesaid ruling 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 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 nonjoining of any independent / public witness.
20. It is evident from the record that no public witness to the recovery of the liquor has been either cited in the list of prosecution witnesses or has been examined by the prosecution. Apparently, IO had even asked a few public persons to join the investigation, however, all of them refused to join the investigation. 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 FIR No. 144/2019 St. Vs. Parmod @ Moghal 10 a perusal of the record, no serious effort 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 the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC."
21. 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."
22. 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 FIR No. 144/2019 St. Vs. Parmod @ Moghal 11 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 that the explanation for non joining the witnesses from the public is an afterthought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful.
23. 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, noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of law, even though public witnesses were easily available in the vicinity, makes the prosecution version highly doubtful.
24. This Court is conscious of the legal position that nonjoining of independent witnesses cannot be the sole ground to discard or doubt the FIR No. 144/2019 St. Vs. Parmod @ Moghal 12 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.
iii). Possibility of misuse of seal of the investigating officer.
25. As per the version of the prosecution witnesses, after sealing the case property and the samples of illicit liquor with seal of 'SS', the aforesaid seal was handed over to HC Sunil. However, HC Sunil was a recovery witness and had apprehended the accused and was subsequently, a part of the investigation in the present case. Thus, 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 to HC Sunil. Also, there is no taking over memo on record to show as to when the seal was taken back from HC Sunil or if it remained with him forever. In such a factual backdrop, since the seal was given to HC Sunil, the seal remained with the police officials of the same police station and therefore, the possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out. Moreover, it is not even the case of the prosecution that the seal was not within the reach of the IO and thus, there was no scope of tampering of case property.
FIR No. 144/2019St. Vs. Parmod @ Moghal 13
26. 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 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 OfficerHoshiar 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."
27. 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..."
28. 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 PW4 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 FIR No. 144/2019 St. Vs. Parmod @ Moghal 14 cannot be ruled out. 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.
29. Perusal of record shows that the Excise Result, Ex. A2 was obtained qua 2 sample bottles (180 ml each) only, whereby the presence of alcohol in the said sample bottle 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 2 bottles (360 Ml of liquid), 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 FIR No. 144/2019 St. Vs. Parmod @ Moghal 15 in possession of the illicit liquor without pass or permit more than permitted quantity so as to constitute an offence. ..."
v). Other infirmities in the prosecution case.
30. Furthermore, inconsistency apparent from record pertains to the facts that PW1 deposed that the entire investigation was completed at about 3:30 AM. Whereas, the PW2 deposed that after completion of the investigation, he reached the Police Station at about 3:00 AM. However, PW4 in stark contradiction with the testimony of both these witnesses stated that PW2 HC Sunil returned to the spot after registration of FIR at about 3:45 PM and PWs 1, 2 and 4 left the spot after completion of investigation at about 6:30 AM. Thus, there is material inconsistency in the statement of PW1,2, and 4 regarding the time of completion of investigation. Furthermore, it is a matter of record that the FIR in the present matter was registered at 3:10 AM and admittedly, as deposed by the PWs after return of PW HC Sunil at the spot pursuant to registration of FIR, IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/C and conducted his personal search Ex.PW1/D and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW1/E and prepared the site plan Ex.PW4/C at the spot itself. Thus, it is not possible that all these proceedings could be completed in a time span of less than half an hour and all the police officials could have returned to the police station by 3:003:30 AM. Furthermore, there is also major contradictions regarding time of arrival of IO at the spot. Both PW1 and 2 stated that after giving the information regarding the occurrence at police station vide DD No.54B dated 28.03.3209 at 9:25 PM, the IO arrived at the spot at about 11:00 PM. Whereas, PW4 IO stated that after receiving DD No.54B, he reached at the spot at about 9:45 PM. There also appears to be vital contradictions regarding the time of FIR No. 144/2019 St. Vs. Parmod @ Moghal 16 arrest of the accused. PW2 stated that the accused was arrested after 3:20 PM but surprisingly the time of arrest has not been reflected in the arrest memo Ex.PW1/C and such statement of PW2 is in contradiction with his own statement that after completion of entire investigation including personal search and arrest of accused, he returned to PS at 3:00AM. Further, all PWs have deposed that the accused was found in possession of 2 plastic kattas having total 192 quarter bottles, however, as per DD No.54B, the accused was stated to be found in possession of one katta having 4 boxes of liquor and these four boxes do not find any mention in the seizure memo Ex.PW1/A, disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW1/E and testimony of witnesses. There is no explanation from prosecution regarding the abovenoted serious infirmities in the investigation conducted by the police which constrains this court to drawn an inference qua possibility of planted recovery upon the accused. The inference drawn above further gains strength from the fact that the police did not bother at all to discover the source of illicit liquor or to further enquire about the potential customers of the same.
31. There is no gain saying that if two reasonably probable and evenly balanced views of the evidence are possible, one 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 FIR No. 144/2019 St. Vs. Parmod @ Moghal 17 offence U/S33 of Delhi Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt, thus, entitling the accused person to benefit of doubt and acquittal.
32. Accordingly, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused for the offence U/S33 of Delhi Excise Act and holds the accused not guilty of commission of the said offence. Accused Pramod @ Moghal is thus, acquitted of the offence U/S33 of Delhi Excise Act.
33. The bail bonds, if any furnished by accused at the time of commencement of trail stands cancelled. Surety, if any stands discharged. Documents, if any shall be returned to its rightful owner as per rules. Endorsement, if any stands cancelled. Case property if any, shall be disposed off after expiration of period to assail this judgment and in case of appeal, as per the directions of Ld. Appellate Court. Case file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on (Aishwarya Sharma)
this day i.e. 27th June, 2023 MM-01 South West District, Dwarka,
New Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 17 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(Aishwarya Sharma) MM-01 South West District, Dwarka, New Delhi FIR No. 144/2019 St. Vs. Parmod @ Moghal