Delhi District Court
State vs . Rinku on 12 February, 2020
State Vs. Rinku
IN THE COURT OF SH. VAIBHAV MEHTA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 05, (NORTH)
ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI
State versus Rinku
FIR No. 189/12
PS Bawana
U/s. 33 of Delhi Excise Act
JUDGMENT
1 Serial No. of the case : 5282947/16
2 Date of commission : 09.06.2012
3 Date of institution of the case : 10.07.2013
4 Name of complainant : SI Uday Singh
5 Name of accused : Rinku S/o Late Sh. Baljeet
Singh
6 Offence complained of : U/s. 33 Delhi Excise Act
7 Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8 Arguments heard on : 12.02.2020 Digitally
signed by
9 Final order : Acquitted VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV MEHTA
MEHTA Date:
10 Date of judgment : 12.02.2020 2020.02.18
14:58:32
+0530
FIR No. 189/12, PS Bawana 1 of 4
State Vs. Rinku
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.06.2012 at about 10.45 am, at Radha Krishan Mandir, Poothkhurd, Delhi, accused was found in possession of one car of make Hyundai Accent bearing no. DL 1P 6986 which was containing 8 katta/ sack cartoons containing 15 quarters bottles of make Santa Masaledar Sharab for sale in Arunachal Pradesh without any permit or license. Thereafter, the present FIR got registered against accused for offences u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act.
CHARGE
2. Charge was framed against the accused on 17.08.2015 for offences u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act wherein he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. During the course of PE, summons were issued to PW/ superdar Baljeet and PW Sh. Pardeep by Ld. Predecessor Court and they were received back with the report that they both had died and copy of death certificate was already annexed with the summons. In view of the abovesaid report duly forwarded by SHO concerned, PW/ superdar Baljeet and PW Pradeep are dropped from the list of witnesses.
4. Perusal of record shows that the PW/ Superdar Baljeet and PW Pradeep are dropped from the list of witnesses as they had expired. Copy of death certificate is already on record. Perusal of record reveals that the FIR No. 189/12, PS Bawana 2 of 4 State Vs. Rinku accused Rinku was arrested on the disclosure statement of the owner of the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was found lying stationary on the road and the same was containing illegal liquor and during investigation, the IO contacted the owner of the offending vehicle who stated that the offending vehicle was at that time in the possession of accused Rinku and on his disclosure statement, accused Rinku was arrested. There is nothing to connect the accused Rinku with the offence alleged except the disclosure statement of the owner of the offending vehicle namely Baljeet Singh. There is no other eye witnesses who saw the accused committing offence and considering that the superdar Baljeet has passed away and was dropped from the list of witnesses, this court does away with the necessity of recording the testimonies of remaining prosecution witnesses and thereby closes the prosecution evidence (PE). Also this court does away with recording of statement of accused (SA) u/s 313 Cr.PC since nothing incriminating has come on record against him.
5. The accused has been charged for offence u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act. Since the superdar/PW Baljeet had already expired, this court is of the view that in the absence of other eye witnesses the examination of remaining formal witnesses shall be an exercise in futility as there is no eye witness to the alleged offence and the superdar Baljeet Singh could not be examined since he has passed away. Non examination of the superdar / Baljeet Singh has turned out to be detrimental for the prosecution's case.
FIR No. 189/12, PS Bawana 3 of 4 State Vs. Rinku
Even the testimonies of the remaining witnesses could not fill the lacuna left due to non examination of the superdar/ Baljeet Singh.
6. In view of the abovementioned, the prosecution cannot prove that the accused committing the offence and it is only the superdar / Baljeet Singh who could have proved some link between the accused and offence alleged and could have proved that the accused was in possession of the offending offence at the time of commission of offence. Therefore, the testimonies of the remaining prosecution witnesses even if accepted un rebutted would not be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. Therefore, this court does away with the necessity of recording testimonies of remaining formal prosecution witnesses (PE) and the statement of accused (SA) and acquits the accused of charges u/s 33 of Delhi Excise. Accused is directed to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds u/s 437A Cr.PC.
Announced in the open (VAIBHAV MEHTA)
court on 12.02.2020 MM5 (North), Rohini Courts
New Delhi
FIR No. 189/12, PS Bawana 4 of 4