Delhi District Court
State vs Saroj on 11 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. JYOTI NAIN
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-07: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
FIR No. 706/2021
U/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act
PS: NIA
State vs. Saroj W/o Mohinder Singh
Date of Institution of case:-22.09.2022
Date of Judgment reserved:-11.08.2025 (at 11:30 am)
Date on which Judgment pronounced:-11.08.2025 (at 01:00 pm)
JUDGMENT
Case Number : 9709/2022
CNR Number : DLNT020217282022
Date of Commission : 06.12.2021
of offence
Name of the : Ct. Satish, No. 2121/OND
complainant
Name and address of : Saroj W/o Sh. Mohinder Singh
the accused
Offence complained : 33 of Delhi Excise Act
of
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JYOTI
Date:
NAIN
NAIN 2025.08.11
17:15:03
FIR No. 760/2025 State vs. Saroj 1 of 12 +0530
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The case of the prosecution shorn of unnecessary details is, that on 06.12.2021, at about 09:38 pm, at main Sannoth Holambi Kalan Road, near Aggarwal Mishthan Bhandar, Phase-1, Metro Vihar, Holambi Kalan, Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station NIA, accused was found in possession of 60 quarter bottles of illicit liquor make Santra Masaledar Deshi Sharab for Sale in Haryana Only without any permit or license. Thus, according to prosecution, accused committed an offence punishable under Section 33 of The Delhi Excise Act, 2009. Thereafter, upon investigation statements of witnesses were recorded. Subsequently, an FIR was registered against the accused.
2. Investigation was completed and police report under section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed under section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 of the prescribed duty.
3. Copy of charge sheet and annexed documents were supplied to the accused in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. Arguments on charge were heard and charge against accused was framed under section U/s 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 vide order dated 19.07.2023. Thereafter, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined four witnesses.
6. PW1 HC Satish, No. 2101/OND, District Line, OND, Delhi, He deposed that on 06.12.2021, he was posted at PS NIA as a Constable. On that day, he was on patrolling duty at Phase I, Metro Vihar, Holambi Kalan, Delhi. During patrolling at about 8.50 p.m., he reached near Aggarwal Mithhan, at Sannotthh Holambi Kalan Road, Delhi where he saw that one woman having one plastic katta on her shoulder was coming from Sannothh side towards Holambi Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI Date:
NAIN FIR No. 760/2025 State vs. Saroj 2 of 12 NAIN 2025.08.11 17:15:07 +0530 Kalan, Delhi. After seeing him, she got frightened and turned back and started walking. He approached and stopped her. On inquiry about the plastic katta, she did not give any satisfactory reply. Upon suspicion he checked the plastic katta and found illicit liquor inside the Katta. On asking, she disclosed her name as Saroj, W/o Mahender.
He gave the information at the PS regarding the above said facts/incident. Thereafter, HC Manvir along with W/Ct. Manoj reached at the spot. He handed over the custody of accused and recovered illicit liquor to IO. IO requested 4-5 public persons to join the investigation but none of them agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. IO checked the said katta and found 60 quarter bottles of illicit liquor in the plastic katta make Santra Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only 180 ml. IO kept one quarter bottle as sample from the katta and put the remaining quarter bottles in the plastic katta. Thereafter, IO prepared pullanda with the help of one white colour cloth and sealed the same with the seal of MM. IO gave serial no. S1 to plastic katta and S1A to sample quarter bottle. IO prepared seizure memo Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at Point A. IO filled M-29 form. IO handed over the seal to him after use. IO recorded his statement Ex.PW1/B bearing his signatures at Point A. IO prepared rukka and handed over to him for registration of FIR. He visited PS and handed over rukka to D.O. After some time, D. O. gave him original rukka along with copy of FIR. He came back at the spot and gave the original rukka and copy of FIR to the IO. IO prepared site plan at his instance which is Ex.PW1/C. IO recorded the disclosure statement of the accused which is Ex.PW1/D bearing his signatures at Point A. Thereafter, IO served notice U/s 41-A Cr.P.C to the accused and bound down the accused. He along with IO, W/ct. Manoj Kumari having the case property went to PS. IO deposited the case property in the Malkhana. His supplementary statement was recorded by the IO.
This witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI NAIN NAIN Date:
2025.08.11 17:15:11 +0530 FIR No. 760/2025 State vs. Saroj 3 of 12
7. PW2 is W/Ct. Manoj Kumari, No. 1642/OND, Public Grievances Cell, OND, Delhi, She deposed that on 06.12.2021, she was posted at PS NIA as a Constable. On that day, she was present in PP Metro Vihar, Delhi. IO/HC Manvir received DD No. 109A regarding apprehension of a woman having illicit liquor, on which she along with IO reached at the spot i.e. near Aggarwal Mithhan, at Sannotthh Holambi Kalan Road, Delhi where Ct. Satish along with one woman was present. Ct.Satish produced the woman and a plastic katta to IO. IO requested 4-5 public persons to join the investigation but none of them agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. IO checked the said katta and found 60 quarter bottles of illicit liquor in the plastic katta make Santra Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only 180 ml. IO kept one quarter bottle as sample from the katta and put the remaining quarter bottles in the plastic katta. Thereafter, IO prepared pullanda with the help of one white colour cloth and sealed the same with the seal of MM. IO gave serial no. S1 to plastic katta and S1A to sample quarter bottle. IO prepared seizure memo Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at Point B. IO filled M-29 form. IO handed over the seal to Ct. Satish after use. IO recorded statement of Ct. Satish and prepared rukka and handed over to Ct. Satish for registration of FIR. After some time, Ct. Satish came back at the spot and gave the original rukka and copy of FIR to the IO. IO prepared site plan and recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Saroj which is Ex.PW1/D bearing her signatures at Point B. Thereafter, IO served notice U/s 41-A Cr. P. C to the accused and bound down the accused. She along with IO, W/ct. Manoj Kumari having the case property went to PS. IO deposited the case property in the Malkhana. His supplementary statement was recorded by the IO.
This witness was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
8. PW3 is HC Manvir Singh No.2078 posted at 3rd Battalion, Delhi.
He deposed that on 06.12.2021, he was posted at PS NIA as a Head Constable. On that day, he was present in PP Metro Vihar, Delhi where he received DD No. 109A regarding apprehension of a woman having illicit liquor, on which he Digitally signed by FIR No. 760/2025 State vs. Saroj 4 of 12 JYOTI JYOTI NAIN Date:
NAIN 2025.08.11
17:15:16
+0530
along with Wct Manoj Kumari reached at the spot i.e. near Aggarwal Mithhan, at Sannotthh Holambi Kalan Road, Delhi where Ct. Satish along with one woman was present. Ct. Satish produced the woman and a plastic katta to him. He requested 4-5 public persons to join the investigation but none of them agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. He checked the said katta and found 60 quarter bottles of illicit liquor in the plastic katta make Santra Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only 180 ml. He kept one quarter bottle as sample from the katta and put the remaining quarter bottles in the plastic katta. Thereafter, he prepared pullanda with the help of one white colour cloth and sealed the same with the seal of MM. He gave serial no. S1 to plastic katta and S1A to sample quarter bottle. He prepared seizure memo Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at Point C. He filled M-29 form Ex.PW-3/A bearing his signatures at point A. He handed over the seal to Ct. Satish after use. He recorded statement of Ct. Satish and prepared rukka Ex.PW-3/B bearing his signatures at point A and handed over to Ct. Satish for registration of FIR. After some time, Ct. Satish came back at the spot and gave the original rukka and copy of FIR to him. He prepared site plan at the instance of Ct. Satish already Ex.PW-1/C bearing his signatures at point A. He recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Saroj which is already Ex.PW1/D bearing his signatures at Point C. Thereafter, he served notice U/s 41-A Cr. P. C to the accused and bound down the accused. He along with police staff having the case property went to PS where he deposited the case property in Malkhana. He recorded statement of witnesses.
On 21.12.2021, he directed HC Sunil to deposit samples with Excise department. In the evening he came back and informed about deposit of case property in Excise Office ITO. He recorded his statement.
This witness was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
9. PW4 is HC Rakesh, No. 10490, PCR, Delhi.
He deposed that on 21.12.2021, he was posted at PS NIA as Constable. On that day, according to the instruction of IO HC Manbir, he collected sample of JYOTI Digitally signed by JYOTI NAIN Date: 2025.08.11 NAIN 17:15:21 +0530 FIR No. 760/2025 State vs. Saroj 5 of 12 case property alongwith Form M-29 from the MHC(M) vide Road RC No. 424/21/21 and deposited the same at Excise Office, ITO, Vikas Bhawan, Delhi. He obtained copy of the receipt of the depositing of the case property and handed over the same to MHC (M) till the sample of case property remained in his possession, no tampering was effected with the sample of case property.
This witness was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
10. Perusal of record shows, that statement of accused was also recorded under section 294 Cr.P.C in which the accused has admitted the document i.e. Registration of FIR No.760/21 which is Ex.A1, Certificate 65-B Indian Evidence Act-which is Ex.A2, GD/DD No.109-A dt 06.12.2021 which is Ex.A3, Excise Control Laboratory Result which is Ex.A4, Road certificate- which is Ex.A5 and contents of register no. 19 regarding the deposition of case property.
11. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. r/w section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded. All incriminating material brought on record were put to the accused, to which she denied the allegations made against her and claimed herself to be innocent and pleaded that she has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused denied to lead any evidence in her defence and the same was closed.
12. Thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments and arguments were adduced at length by both the parties. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Learned APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused and have carefully perused the record.
13. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state, that state has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that accused was found in possession of illicit liquor without permit. It is further stated, that there are ocular and documentary evidence on record to bring home the guilt of the accused. Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI Date:
NAIN FIR No. 760/2025 State vs. Saroj 6 of 12 NAIN 2025.08.11 17:15:26 +0530
14. Per contra, it is argued by the Ld. LAC for the accused, that non joinder of public witness despite availability casts a shadow of doubt on prosecution story. Moreover, alcohol was not recovered from the possession of accused and that she is falsely implicated in present case and that there is no independent evidence against him.
15. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence, that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law, that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is suppose to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defense of the accused. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
16. In present case, prosecution was duty bound to prove the possession of the illicit liquor with accused. Same is sought to be proved by the recovery memo and testimony of the witnesses. Incident happened at about 09:38 PM and it is admitted fact, that public persons were available at the spot, which is evident from the testimony of PW1 and PW2, who stated in their examination in chief, that IO had requested 4-5 public persons to join the investigation but none of them agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. The relevant extract of their cross-examination to this effect are as under:-
PW1 i.e. HC Satish, deposed in his cross examination, "IO had not served any notice to public persons who refused to join the investigation".
PW2 i.e. W/Ct. Manoj Kumari, deposed in his cross examination, "IO had not served any notice to public persons who refused to join the investigation".
PW3 HC Manvir Singh i.e. IO, deposed in his cross-examination, " I have not served any notice to public persons who refused to join the investigation".
Digitally signed JYOTI by JYOTI NAIN Date: 2025.08.11 FIR No. 760/2025 State vs. Saroj 7 of 12 NAIN 17:15:31 +0530
17. 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), 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".
18. 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 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI Date:
NAIN NAIN 2025.08.11 17:15:35 +0530 FIR No. 760/2025 State vs. Saroj 8 of 12 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".
19. Also, in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh , AIR 1994 SC 1872, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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].
Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI Date:
NAIN NAIN 2025.08.11 17:15:40 +0530 FIR No. 760/2025 State vs. Saroj 9 of 12
20. Considering the aforesaid observations made by the Higher Courts, the omissions / failure on the part of investigating agency to join independent public witnesses create reasonable doubt in the prosecution story.
21. In the present case, IO has not joined any public witness at the time of arrest or while completing the formalities despite availability of public persons. There is a possibility, that it was a chance recovery. However, at the time and place from where the accused was apprehended and when the formalities were being completed, public persons were admittedly present.
Even then, the IO failed to join any public witness. All the witnesses examined are police witnesses. This casts a shadow of doubt on prosecution story.
22. Another material thing which is required to be discussed about the case of prosecution is, that on 06.12.2021, PW1 was on patrolling duty, meaning thereby, that at the relevant time, he was not in the PS and it seems, that outside the PS, then as per Punjab Rules, they being on duty was required to enter his departure & arrival to & from the PS NIA in the DD register of the said PS. Now, as per Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934:-
"22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No. II-The following matters shall, amongst others, be entered:-
(c)The hour of arrival and the 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.
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.
Note:- Lines & Police Posts, where Register no.II is maintained. Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI Date:
NAIN NAIN 2025.08.11 17:15:45 +0530 FIR No. 760/2025 State vs. Saroj 10 of 12
23. But, in the present case, this provision appears to have not been complied with in respect of departure and arrival entry of PW1. Prosecution has failed to produce any evidence, whatsoever on record in the nature of documentary entries of the required DD entries, so as to establish the presence of PW1 at the spot. Hence, it creates doubt in the prosecution story.
24. In present case the seal was neither handed over to an independent witness nor deposited in malkhana. No explanation has come on record as to why handing over memo was not made or seal was not handed over to an independent witness.
In these circumstances, the possibility of tampering of case property cannot be ruled out. Reliance is placed on Ramji Singh V/s State of Haryana 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 452, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court 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".
25. 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 tampering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out. It was very essential for the Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI NAIN NAIN Date:
2025.08.11 FIR No. 760/2025 State vs. Saroj 11 of 12 17:15:50 +0530 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."
26. All the lapses in investigation creates doubt on the very recovery of illicit liquor from the possession of the accused. The court is of the considered view that prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.
27 In view of the above said description and in the absence of any cogent evidence against the accused Saroj, she is hereby acquitted for offence under section 33 The Delhi Excise Act, 2009. Case property be confiscated to the state as per rules and the same be destroyed.
28. File be consigned to record room.
29. This Judgment consists of 12 pages and all pages bear my signature.
Digitally signed JYOTI by JYOTI NAIN
Date:
Announced and dictated directly NAIN 2025.08.11
17:15:54 +0530
into the computer in open court (JYOTI NAIN)
on 11th Day of August, 2025. JMFC-07/North District Rohini Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 760/2025 State vs. Saroj 12 of 12