Delhi District Court
3. Title Of The Case : State vs Jagbir Singh on 26 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SUNIL CHAUDHARY : METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATEIV (OUTER) : ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
1. Case No. : 181/03
2. Unique I.D. No. : 02401R0204382002
3. Title of the Case : State Vs Jagbir Singh
FIR No.747/01 PS Mangolpuri
4. Date of Institution : 30.07.02
5. Date of reserving judgment : 26.03.12
6. Date of pronouncement : 26.03.12
J U D G M E N T :
a) The Serial No. of the case : 181/03
b) The date of commission : 21.09.01
c) The name of complainant : SI Rajesh Kumar No. D 849
PS Mangolpuri, Delhi.
d) The name of accused : 1. Jagbir Singh, s/o. Sh. Ram Kumar,
2. Manoj Kumar, s/o. Ram Chander, R/o. Vill and PO Jatti Khurd, PS Kundli, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana FIR NO. 747/01 State vs Jagbir Singh Page No 1 of 6
e) The offence complained of : Sec. 61 Punjab Excise Act, 1914
f) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) The final order : Acquitted
h) The date of such order : 26.03.12 Brief facts of the decision of the case :
1. In the present case, accused Jagbir Singh and Manoj Kumar were put to trial for the offence punishable u/s 61 of the Punjab Excise Act 1914 on the allegations that on 21.09.01 at about 08.50 am at D Block, Chowk, Mangolpuri , Delhi they were found having 11 plastic bags containing 200 pouches and 3 corrugated boxes containing 48 quarter bottles each of illicit liquor in a car bearing no. DL 8CF 8292 and they were not having any license or permit to possess the liquor.
2. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined six witnesses to substantiate the charge. Accused in their examination alleged false implication and did not examine any defence witness.
FIR NO. 747/01 State vs Jagbir Singh Page No 2 of 6
3. As per prosecution witnesses, on 21.09.2001 PW4 Ct. Krishan Kumar alongwith SI Rajesh was on patrolling duty in the area of PS Mangolpuri and at about 08.40 p.m. at B Block Bus Terminal a secret information was received that a Car bearing no. DL 8CF 8292 carrying illicit liquor would come from Avantika Side. Thereafter, a nakabandi was made and at about 08.50 a.m. theTATA Indica baring aforesaid number was stopped and both the accused were in the said car and car on checking found containing 11 bags and 3 cartons and each of the said 11 bags was containing 200 pouches of illicit liquor while each carton was carrying 48 quarter bottles of liquor and that two pouches from each bag and one quarter bottle from each carton were taken as sample and the remaining pouches and quarters were kept in their respective bags and cartons whereas the samples were kept in a card board box and the bags, cartons as well as the box were sealed with the seal of RK and form M29 was filled up, rukka was prepared and the present case was registered by PW1 which was investigated further by PW6 HC Surinder who took into possession the recovered case property and FIR NO. 747/01 State vs Jagbir Singh Page No 3 of 6 documents and prepared the site plan and arrested the accused and that the case property was deposited with PW2 from whom the samples were collected by PW3 Ct. Laltesh Kumar no. 1149 NW on 03.10.01 who deposited the same in Excise Office.
4. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram reported at AIR 1980 SC 1314 their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed on the facts of the case that it was the admitted case of the prosecution that the sample changed several hands before reaching the Public Analyst. The inevitable effect of the omission to examine any of the witnesses who handled the sample was that the prosecution failed to rule out the possibility of the sample being changed or tampered with during that period, a fact which had to be proved affirmatively by the prosecution. It is held by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in case titled Om Parkash v. State of Haryana reported at 1999(1) R.C.R (Criminal) 771 that prosecution is obliged to show that right from the time of seizure upto the time when sample reached the office of Chemical Examiner, it remained untempered and the prosecution must bring FIR NO. 747/01 State vs Jagbir Singh Page No 4 of 6 the evidence with reasonable certainty excluding every chance of tempering with the sample. It is held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case Safiullah vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported at 1993(1) R.C.R (Criminal) 622 that in the events seal was not given to an independent witness after use but kept by police official possibility of tempering with the contents of sealed parcel cannot be ruled out and it was very essential for prosecution to have established from stage to stage that sample was not tampered with.
5. In the present case seal after use was handed over to PW4 Ct. Krishan Kumar, who is a police official happens to be posted with the same poliec station where the samples and the case property remained deposited till its analysis. As per the testimony of the witnesses the case property after the recovery was handed over to HC Surender and thereafter was deposited by him with PW2. Both the witnesses have not stated on oath that the case property remained intact while it was in their possession. So as per ratio of the cases discussed above the chain of the prosecution evidence is not FIR NO. 747/01 State vs Jagbir Singh Page No 5 of 6 complete that the samples which were deposited with the FSL were not tempered and were the same which were taken from the material allegedly recovered from the accused. Even the case property produced before the court was also found in unsealed conditions and tampered seals.
6. In these circumstances both the accused are acquitted from the charge framed against them as the case is not established by the prosecution beyond doubt.
Announced in the open court on 26th March, 2012. ( SUNIL CHAUDHARY) MMIV/ OUTER/DELHI FIR NO. 747/01 State vs Jagbir Singh Page No 6 of 6