Delhi District Court
State vs Sanjay Baswal on 11 April, 2026
Page 1 of 16
IN THE COURT OF ASHISH KUMAR MEENA
JMFC-01, SAKET COURT (SOUTH) NEW DELHI.
FIR NO.: 439/2023
U/S: 33/52(2)/58 DELHI EXCISE ACT
PS: FATEHPUR BERI
STATE
VS.
(1). SANJAY BASWAL, S/O SH. MADAN LAL,
R/o H. No.649, Prem Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, Lodhi
Road, Central Delhi.
(2). TARI KAPOOR, W/O SH. RAHUL KUMAR,
R/o H. No. E-577, Greater Kailash, Part-2, New Delhi.
..... ACCUSED PERSONS
1. Sr. No. of the case : 6313/2023
2. The date of offence : 04.09.2023
3. The name of the complainant : Ct. Radhey Shyam
4. The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
5. The date of order : 11.04.2026
6. The final order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, Sanjay Baswal ("Accused no.1") is facing trial for the allegations that on 04.09.2023, at about 05:10 p.m., at near Border Picket, Aya Nagar, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS-Fatehpur Beri, was found carrying illicit liquor (Ex.PW1/A) Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
FIR No: 439/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Sanjay Baswal & Anr. MEENA 2026.04.11 16:28:30 +0530 Page 2 of 16 in vehicle bearing registration no. DL-12CJ-6044 ("Offending vehicle"), without any licence or permit or pass, thereby accused no.1 has committed an offence punishable u/s 33/52/58 Delhi Excise Act.
2. It is also an allegation that Tari Kapoor ("Accused no.2"), being owner of the offending vehicle, allowed co-accused Sanjay Baswal to carry illicit liquor in her vehicle. Thereby, accused no.2 Prabha Kumari has committed an offence punishable u/s 33/52 Delhi Excise Act.
3. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO. Consequently, accused persons were summoned after taking cognizance of offence. The accused persons were charged u/s 33/52(2)/58 of the Delhi Excise Act and accordingly, the charges were framed against the accused persons to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined total three witnesses. PW-1 Ct. Radhey Shyam (Complainant) has deposed that on 04.09.2023, due to the G-20 Summit, vehicles were being checked at the picket. At about 05:00 PM, one car make Eco Sport Ford bearing registration No. DL- 12CJ-6044 came from the side of Gurugram, Haryana. The vehicle was stopped for checking. Upon checking, cartons of illicit liquor were found kept inside the diggy and at the backside of the car. On inquiry, the driver disclosed his name as Sanjay Baswal, S/o Sh. Madan Lal, R/o Kotla Mubarakpur. When questioned about the cartons of illicit liquor, he could not provide any satisfactory answer. Upon further checking, nine peties of Tuborg Beer and one Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.04.11
16:28:33
+0530
FIR No: 439/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Sanjay Baswal & Anr.
Page 3 of 16
carton of Blender's Pride were found. Information was given to the SHO, and thereafter SI Ashwani reached the spot. The accused was handed over to SI Ashwani. SI Ashwani took out all the cartons and found 24 beer bottles in each of the nine peties, having the label "Tuborg Premium Beer, for sale in Haryana only, 350 ml." One carton was found containing nine bottles bearing the label "Blender's Pride, for sale in Haryana only, 750 ml". SI Ashwani took out one sample bottle from each carton, and the remaining bottles of illicit liquor were kept back in their respective cartons. Thereafter, three cartons were placed in each katta brought by the field beat staff, and the carton of Blender's Pride was kept separately in one katta. The mouths of all plastic kattas were tied with white cloth pieces and sealed with the seal of "AY". The sample bottles were also sealed with the seal of "AY". SI Ashwani prepared Form M-29 at the spot. The kattas were marked as Sr. No. A1 to A4, and the sample bottles were marked as Sr. No. S-01 to S-9. The sample bottle of Blender's Pride was marked as Sr. No.
10. After use, the seal was handed over to him. The case property was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. The offending vehicle was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, the IO recorded his statement and prepared the rukka, which was handed over to him for registration of FIR. He went to the Police Station and got the FIR registered. After registration of FIR, the case was marked to HC Zile Singh. He returned to the spot alongwith HC Zile Singh. SI Ashwani handed over the accused, case property, and relevant documents to HC Zile Singh. HC Zile Singh prepared the site plan. The IO recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide Ex.PW1/C. Thereafter, notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. was served upon the accused and he was bound down accordingly. Subsequently, he along with the Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.04.11
FIR No: 439/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Sanjay Baswal & Anr. 16:28:36
+0530
Page 4 of 16
IO brought the case property to the Police Station and deposited the same in the malkhana. The IO later recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The witness was duly cross-examined by the accused persons.
5. PW-2 SI Ashwani Yadav has deposed that on 04.09.2023, upon receiving information, he reached the spot where Ct. Radhey Shyam handed over the accused along with the case property to him. He took out all the cartons and found that nine peties each contained 24 beer bottles bearing the label "Tuborg Premium Beer, for sale in Haryana only, 350 ml." One peti was found containing nine bottles bearing the label "Blender's Pride, for sale in Haryana only, 750 ml". He took out one sample bottle from each carton, and the remaining bottles of illicit liquor were kept back in their respective cartons. Thereafter, three cartons were placed in each katta brought by the field beat staff. The carton of Blender's Pride was kept separately in one katta. The mouths of all the plastic kattas were tied with white cloth pieces and sealed with the seal of "AY". The sample bottles were also sealed with the seal of "AY". He prepared Form M-29 at the spot. The above-said kattas were marked as Sr. No. A1 to A4, and the sample bottles were marked as Sr. No. S-01 to S-9. The sample bottle of Blender's Pride was marked as Sr. No. 10. After use, the seal was handed over to Ct. Radhey Shyam. He took the case property into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. He also seized the offending vehicle vide memo Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Ct. Radhey Shyam, prepared the rukka, and handed it over to him for registration of the FIR. Ct. Radhey Shyam went to the Police Station and got the FIR registered. After registration of the FIR, the case was marked to HC Zile Singh. Ct. Radhey Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.04.11
16:28:39
+0530
FIR No: 439/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Sanjay Baswal & Anr.
Page 5 of 16
Shyam along with HC Zile Singh returned to the spot. He handed over the accused, the case property, and other relevant documents to HC Zile Singh and thereafter left the spot. Subsequently, the IO recorded his statement. The witness was duly cross-examined by the accused persons.
6. PW-3 HC Zile Singh (IO of this case) has deposed that on 04.09.2023, after registration of the FIR, the case was marked to him for further investigation by the concerned SHO. The Duty Officer handed over the original tehrir and copy of the FIR to him. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Radhey Shyam went to the spot, where he met SI Ashwani Yadav. SI Ashwani Yadav produced one person along with illicit liquor before him and handed over the custody of the accused, case property, and other relevant documents to him. On inquiry, the said person disclosed his name as Sanjay Baswal, S/o Sh. Madan Lal, R/o Kotla Mubarakpur. During investigation, he prepared the site plan at the instance of Ct. Radhey Shyam vide Ex.PW3/A. He served notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. upon the accused vide Ex.PW3/B. He bound down the accused vide memo Ex.PW3/C. He also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide Ex.PW1/C. Thereafter, he alongwith his staff brought the case property to the Police Station and deposited the same in the malkhana. He recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, he sent the sample bottle to the Excise Laboratory through HC Vipin for obtaining the result. The sample was taken from the custody of MHC(M). HC Vipin deposited the sample at the Excise Laboratory, obtained the acknowledgment receipt, and handed it over to MHC(M). He recorded the statement of HC Vipin. Thereafter, he obtained the excise result, which confirmed that the Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 439/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Sanjay Baswal & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.04.11 16:28:42 +0530 Page 6 of 16 sample was positive for alcohol. The result was placed on record. During investigation, he obtained the ownership details of the offending vehicle, make Eco Sport bearing registration No. DL- 12CJ-6044, from the Transport Authority. It was revealed that the vehicle was registered in the name of Smt. Tari Kapoor, W/o Rahul Kumar, R/o Greater Kailash. He served notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. upon Tari Kapoor vide Ex. PW3/D. He interrogated the accused vide memo Ex. PW3/E. He bound down the accused vide memo Ex.PW3/F. After completion of investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before the concerned Court. The witness was duly cross-examined by the accused persons.
7. It is pertinent to mention that the accused persons have also admitted the genuineness of FIR, Certificate u/s 65B IEA, Chemical Examination Report and Road Certificate without admitting the content of the same. Prosecution evidence was thereafter closed.
8. On completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons were recorded u/s 281 Cr.P.C r/w 313 Cr.P.C, wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons, to which they stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case and all the exhibits are false and manipulated. Further, the accused persons did not wish to lead defence evidence.
9. Short point for determination before this court is as under:-
"Whether on 04.09.2023, at about 05:10 p.m., at near Border Picket, Aya Nagar, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS-Fatehpur Beri, was found carrying illit liquor in vehicle bearing registration no. Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA FIR No: 439/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Sanjay Baswal & Anr. 2026.04.11 16:28:46 +0530 Page 7 of 16 DL-12CJ-6044 ("Offending vehicle"), without any licence or permit or pass, thereby accused no.1 has committed an offence punishable u/s 33/52 Delhi Excise Act"
"Whether Tari Kapoor ("Accused no.2"), being owner of the offending vehicle, allowed co- accused Sanjay Baswal to carry illicit liquor in her vehicle. Thereby accused no.2 has committed an offence punishable u/s 33/52"
10. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that the ocular and the documentary evidence on record has proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. APP for the state submitted that there is sufficient material available on record to convict the accused persons and hence prayed for conviction of accused persons as per the evidence produced by the prosecution witnesses.
11. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that no recovery was effected from possession of accused no.1. Ld. Counsel for accused persons submitted that the accused persons are innocent and falsely implicated in the present matter. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has pointed out the material contradiction made during the examination of prosecution witnesses. Furthermore, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons submitted that be accused persons are liable to the acquitted in the present case.
12. Final arguments heard. Case file perused.
13. In the present case accused persons are charged under Section 33/52 of Delhi Excise Act. Before appreciating the Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
FIR No: 439/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Sanjay Baswal & Anr. 2026.04.11 16:28:48 +0530 Page 8 of 16 evidence in hand, it is important to go through the relevant provision of the Act:-
Section 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 Digitally shall not be less than six months but which may extend to ASHISH signed by ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.04.11
FIR No: 439/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Sanjay Baswal & Anr. 16:28:52
+0530
Page 9 of 16
three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to one lath rupees.
14. It is also significant to note that Section 52 of Delhi Excise Act presumes that accused persons have committed the offence (u/s 33 of the act) for the possession of which accused persons are unable to account satisfactorily. However, this presumption can be rebutted if proved contrary. It is further to be noted that initial still lies with the prosecution to show that accused persons were found with illicit liquor without any licence. Section 52 of the Act lays down 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) XXXXXXX
15. In order to receive the benefit of Section 52 of the Act, the prosecution is duty bound to prove that the accused persons were found in the possession of illicit liquor. As per version of the prosecution, the same is proved by the recovery memo and testimony of the witnesses. However, the manner of conducting inquiry, seizure and search etc. on the spot at the time of detaining the accused persons were and alleged recovery of liquor in this case, makes the prosecution version highly doubtful as there are Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 439/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Sanjay Baswal & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.04.11 16:28:56 +0530 Page 10 of 16 various material contradictions can be seen in statement of prosecution witnesses.
16. It is the case of prosecution that the complainant/Ct. Radhey Shyam apprehended the accused alongwith illicit liquor and offending vehicle. Thereafter, upon information SI Ashwani Yadav reached at the spot. SI Ashwani Yadav took out sample bottles from bag and sealed the remaining case property with the seal of "AY". Thereafter, he seized the case property vide Ex.PW1/A and offending vehicle vide Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, he got present FIR registered through Ct. Radhey Shyam. Thereafter, the matter was deputed to IO/HC Zile Singh. As discussed above, IO/HC Zile Singh has not seen the case property i.e. illicit liquor as the same were already sealed and seized by the SI Ashwani Yadav. This Court fails to understand as to why the SI Ashwani Yadav was in such hurry to seize and seal the case property prior to registration of FIR. It is an admitted position that the IO has only prepared site and conducted the investigation qua the owner of offending vehicle after registration of FIR. Thus, the chances of preparation of seizure memo at later stage cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, seizure memo Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B mentions the FIR number of the present case at the top of the said memo. No explanation has been put forward by the complainant or prosecution. The said lapse in investigation proves to be fatal to the case of prosecution.
17. Interestingly, all the witnesses have stated that no photographs of the case properties were taken at the time of recovery of property by them. It is to be noted that the prosecution has placed photograph of illicit liquor (Ex.P3) and photograph of offending vehicle (Ex.P4 colly). It is to be noted that Ex.P3 alleges that the illicit liquor was again sealed in the katta recovered from Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.04.11
FIR No: 439/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Sanjay Baswal & Anr. 16:28:59
+0530
Page 11 of 16
the possession of the accused no.1. However, the prosecution has failed to show who is the author of said photographs, as all the witnesses have deposed that they have not taken any photographs of the case property. Further, the prosecution has failed to explain as to why the collective photographs of the case property was not taken prior to sealing of the case property. It is further to be noted that the prosecution has placed photograph of the offending vehicle, however, bare perusal of the photograph itself reflects that it was taken at the later state of investigation. In view of this court, the said lapse and contradiction in investigation proves to be fatal to the case of prosecution.
18. Further, it is deposed by all the witnesses that that they tried to join independent witnesses in the investigation but none of the joined citing personal reasons. As per site plan, the place of incident appears to be busy area and the said incident is stated to have taken place at around 05:10 PM. Further, it is evident from the testimony of the witnesses that accused persons were apprehended alongwith the alleged illicit liquor at public place, but still no public independent person was cited as a witness in this case. Though witnesses have stated in his testimony that some public persons were requested to join, but none of them agreed and it is not clear whether took any effort to give notice to passerby to join them as witnesses but witness did not disclose the names of any such witnesses. IO has also failed to show any effort to include public witnesses in order to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and inspire the confidence of this court.
19. Regarding the importance of joining independent witness during investigation in a case like the present one, reliance may be placed on Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1999(2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
FIR No: 439/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Sanjay Baswal & Anr. MEENA 2026.04.11 16:29:02 +0530 Page 12 of 16 wherein, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this court that 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 evident 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".
20. Similarly, in Nanak Chand Vs. State of Delhi reported as DHC 1992 CRI LJ 55 it is observed as under:-
"That the recovery is proved by three police officials who have differed on who snatched the Kirpan from the petitioner and at what time. 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 reliance but 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 Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 439/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Sanjay Baswal & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.04.11 16:29:05 +0530 Page 13 of 16 stereotyped version. Its rejection needs no Napoleon on the Bridge at Arcola".
21. Also, in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1872, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"It therefore emerges that non-compliance of these provisions i.e. Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. would amount to an irregularity and the effect of the same on the main case depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course, in such a situation, the court has to consider whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused and also examine the evidence in respect of search in the light of the fact that these provisions have not been complied with and further consider whether the weight of evidence is in any manner affected because of the non-compliance. It is well-settled that the testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be an official but as a rule of caution and depending upon the circumstances of the case, the courts look for independent corroboration. This again depends on question whether the official has deliberately failed to comply with these provisions or failure was due to lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with these provisions." [Emphasis supplied]
22. Considering the aforesaid observations made by the Higher Courts, the omissions / failure on the part of investigating agency Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
FIR No: 439/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Sanjay Baswal & Anr. MEENA 2026.04.11 16:29:08 +0530 Page 14 of 16 to join independent public witnesses create reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and substantiates the defence version that there is false implication of the accused in the present case and that the recovery has been falsely planted upon the accused. Further, considering facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of ratio in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC , there was no lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the above-mentioned facts create serious doubt on the case of the prosecution.
23. Further, as per evidence on record, the seal after use was not given to any independent public person. Hence, considering the legal position, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused, as tampering with case property in such a scenario cannot be ruled out. The reliance is placed on the judgment of Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2007 (3) R.C.C. (Criminal) 452, wherein it is held that-
"7. 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."
24. Similarly, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Safiullah v. State, 1993 (1) RCR (Criminal) 622, held that -
"10. The seals after use were kept by the police officials themselves. Therefore, the possibility of Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.04.11
FIR No: 439/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Sanjay Baswal & Anr. 16:29:12
+0530
Page 15 of 16
tampering 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 tampered with. Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused."
25. Further, Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 , provides that the hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty shall be entered vide a separate entry and this entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personality by signature or seal. In the present case, all these departures or the arrival entries have not been proved on the record by the prosecution. In absence of such proof, the presence of the police officials at the spot cannot be believed. Reference can be made to on Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29.
26. Furthermore, it is to be noted that accused no.2 Tari Kapoor has also been made accused in the present matter u/s 33/52(2) Delhi Excise Act. In this regard, it is admitted position that accused no.2 is the owner of offending vehicle, however, the prosecution has failed to prove the authenticity of seizure memo of illicit liquor and offending vehicle. Since, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations qua accused no.1 Sanjay Baswal, therefore, accused no.2 namely Tari Kapoor cannot be held liable for the offence punishable u/s 33/52(2) Delhi Excise Act.
27. From the aforesaid discussion, it is very clear that the Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 439/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Sanjay Baswal & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.04.11 16:29:15 +0530 Page 16 of 16 manner in which the inquiry, seizure and search etc. has been conducted on the spot at the time of alleged recovery of liquor, it makes the prosecution version highly doubtful. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
28. Hence, accused persons namely (1). Sanjay Baswal, S/o Sh. Madan Lal and (2). Tari Kapoor, W/o Sh. Rahul Kumar stands acquitted for the offence punishable under section 33/ 52(2)/58 of Delhi Excise Act, they have been charged with. Ordered accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.04.2026. IT IS CERTIFIED THAT THE PRESENT JUDGMENT RUNS INTO SIXTEEN PAGES AND EACH PAGE BEARS SIGNATURE OF THE UNDERSIGNED. Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2026.04.11 16:29:18 +0530 (ASHISH KUMAR MEENA) JMFC-01/SAKET COURT(SOUTH) NEW DELHI/11.04.2026 FIR No: 439/2023 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Sanjay Baswal & Anr.