Delhi District Court
State vs Ravi Kumar on 22 January, 2026
Page 1 of 14
IN THE COURT OF ASHISH KUMAR MEENA
JMFC-01, SAKET COURT (SOUTH) NEW DELHI.
FIR NO.: 389/2021
U/S: 33/52 DELHI EXCISE ACT
PS: FATEHPUR BERI
STATE
VS.
(1). RAVI KUMAR, S/O SH. VIJAY SINGH,
R/o H. No.241, Village-Dhan Saari, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh.
(2). RAKESH KUMAR SINGH, S/O SH. JANARDAN
SINGH,
R/o H. No.WZ-418-T-3/B Block, Gali No.4, Sadh Nagar,
Palam Colony, Palam Village, New Delhi.
..... ACCUSED PERSONS
1. Sr. No. of the case : 4432/2022
2. The date of offence : 03.09.2021
3. The name of the complainant : HC Anil Kumar
4. The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
5. The date of order : 22.01.2026
6. The final order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, Ravi Kumar ("Accused no.1") is facing trial for the allegations that on 03.09.2021, at about 08:45 a.m., at near Bus Stop, Shanti Colony, Jaunapur-Mandi Road, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS-Fatehpur Beri, was found carrying Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
FIR No: 389/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ravi Kumar @ Ors. 2026.01.22 17:06:48 +0530 Page 2 of 14 illit liquor in vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1LV-6099 ("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 Rakesh Kumar Singh ("Accused no.2"), being owner of the offending vehicle, allowed co-accused Ravi Kumar to carry illicit liquor in his vehicle. Thereby accused no.2 Rakesh Kumar 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 content of charge was read out to accused to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined total six witnesses. It is stated by the witnesses that HC Anil Kumar (PW-1) alongwith HC Manoj Kumar (PW-6), Ct. Monu, Ct. Manish (PW-2) and Ct. Komal, stopped the offending vehicle at the spot and recovered illicit liquor in total 80 cartons boxes containing illicit liquor kept inside the offending vehicle. Thus, HC Anil Kumar took sample from each carton box and sealed the remaining case property with the seal of "AK". Thereafter, he seized the case property and the offending vehicle. Thereafter, he prepared a tehrir and got present FIR registered through Ct. Pawan. After registration of FIR, further investigation of this case was marked to IO/ASI Ashwini Kumar Dixit. During the course of investigation, after inquiring from the accused, he conducted personal search, recorded disclosure Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 389/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ravi Kumar @ Ors. KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
2026.01.22 17:06:51 +0530 Page 3 of 14 statement and arrested the accused. He also conducted investigation qua accused no.2 and collected the ownership proof of the offending vehicle. He almost completed the investigation in all aspect, thereafter, IO/ASI Ashwini Kumar Dixit was transferred. Thus, 2nd IO/HC Maan Singh filled the charge-sheet qua both the accused persons. The prosecution is also relying on Seizure memo of liquor (Ex.PW1/A), Seizure memo of vehicle (Ex.PW1/B), Tehrir (Ex.PW1/C), Arrest memo (Ex.PW2/A), Personal search memo (Ex.PW2/B), Disclosure statement (Ex.PW2/C), Site plan (Ex.PW5/A), Notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW5/B), Notice u/s 41A Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW5/C), Bound down memo (Ex.PW5/D). The witnesses were duly cross-examined by the accused persons.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Final arguments heard. Case file perused.
8. Short point for determination before this court is as Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 389/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ravi Kumar @ Ors. MEENA Date:
2026.01.22 17:06:54 +0530 Page 4 of 14 under:-
"Whether on 03.09.2021, at about 08:45 a.m., at near Bus Stop, Shanti Colony, Jaunapur-Mandi Road, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS- Fatehpur Beri, was found carrying illicit liquor in vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1LV-6099 ("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 Rakesh Kumar Singh ("Accused no.2"), being owner of the offending vehicle, allowed co- accused Ravi Kumar to carry illicit liquor in his vehicle. Thereby accused no.2 has committed an offence punishable u/s 33/52"
9. 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.
10. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused no.1 that no recovery was effected from possession of accused. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused no.2 that the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery. The Ld. Counsel for accused persons submitted that the accused persons are innocent and falsely implicated in the present matter. Ld. Counsel for the accused Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 389/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ravi Kumar @ Ors. KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
2026.01.22 17:06:57 +0530 Page 5 of 14 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.
11. In the present case accused persons are charged under Section 33/52 of Delhi Excise Act. Before appreciating the 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 Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 389/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ravi Kumar @ Ors. MEENA Date:
2026.01.22 17:07:00 +0530 Page 6 of 14 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.
12. 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.
Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
FIR No: 389/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ravi Kumar @ Ors. 2026.01.22 17:07:04 +0530 Page 7 of 14 (2) XXXXXXX
13. 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 various material contradictions can be seen in statement of prosecution witnesses.
14. It is the case of prosecution that the complainant/HC Anil alongwith HC Manoj Kumar, Ct. Monu, Ct. Manish and Ct. Komal apprehended the accused no.1 Ravi Kumar with offending vehicle carrying illicit liquor. Thereafter, HC Anil took out sample bottles from each cartons and sealed the remaining case property with the seal of "AK". Thereafter, he seized the case property vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, he got present FIR registered. The matter was deputed to IO/ASI Ashwini Kumar Dixit. As discussed above, IO/ASI Ashwini Kumar Dixit has not seen the case property. This Court fails to understand as to why the complainant HC Anil Kumar 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 recorded the alleged disclosure statement after registration of FIR. It is to be noted that the seizure memos are in printed formats, whereas, other documents including the complaint are prepared in the handwriting of police official.
Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 389/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ravi Kumar @ Ors. MEENA Date:
2026.01.22 17:07:08 +0530 Page 8 of 14 Thus, the chances of preparation of seizure memo at later stage cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, PW-1 HC Anil Kumar (Complainant) has stated that there were no CCTV camera installed near the place of incident. Whereas, PW-2 HC Manish and PW-3 Pawan have specifically deposed that the CCTV cameras were installed at MCD tolls, however, the same were not seized by the IO. The said contradiction also proves to be fatal to the case of prosecution. Further, such lapse in investigation proves to be fatal to the case of prosecution.
15. 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 Ex.P1, Ex.P2 & Ex.P3 (photograph of alleged illicit liquor) and Ex.P4 (photograph of offending vehicle) were tendered in evidence before this Court. It is to be noted that Ex.P1-P3 alleges that the illicit liquor was again sealed in the katta recovered from the possession of the accused. However, the prosecution has failed to show who is the author of Ex.P1-P3, 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. Furthermore, Ex.P4 i.e. the photograph of offending vehicle is clearly not taken at the place of incident. The Ex.P4 out-rightly contradicts the claim of prosecution. In view of this court, the said lapse and contradiction in investigation proves to be fatal to the case of prosecution.
16. Further, it is deposed by all the witnesses that that they Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 389/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ravi Kumar @ Ors. MEENA Date:
2026.01.22 17:07:11 +0530 Page 9 of 14 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 08:45 AM. 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.
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 Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
FIR No: 389/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ravi Kumar @ Ors. 2026.01.22 17:07:14 +0530 Page 10 of 14 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 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 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 Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 389/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ravi Kumar @ Ors. KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
2026.01.22 17:07:17 +0530 Page 11 of 14 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]
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 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 ASHISH KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 389/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ravi Kumar @ Ors. Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR MEENA Date: 2026.01.22 17:07:21 +0530 Page 12 of 14 prosecution.
21. 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."
22. 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 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."
23. Further, Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 , provides that the hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 389/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ravi Kumar @ Ors. KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.01.22
17:07:25
+0530
Page 13 of 14
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.
24. Furthermore, it is to be noted that accused no.2 Rakesh Kumar Singh 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 Ravi Kumar, accused no.2 namely Rakesh Kumar Singh cannot be held liable u/s 33/52(2) Delhi Excise Act.
25. From the aforesaid discussion, it is very clear that the 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 Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA FIR No: 389/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ravi Kumar @ Ors. 2026.01.22 17:07:29 +0530 Page 14 of 14 prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
26. Hence, accused persons namely (1). Ravi Kumar, S/o Sh. Vijay Singh and (2). Rakesh Kumar Singh, S/o Sh. Janardan Singh 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 22.01.2026. IT IS CERTIFIED THAT THE PRESENT JUDGMENT RUNS INTO FOURTEEN PAGES AND EACH PAGE BEARS SIGNATURE OF THE UNDERSIGNED. Digitally signed ASHISH by ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.01.22 17:07:35 +0530 (ASHISH KUMAR MEENA) JMFC-01/SAKET COURT(SOUTH) NEW DELHI/22.01.2026 FIR No: 389/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Ravi Kumar @ Ors.