Delhi District Court
Jitender Antl vs The State Nct Of Delhi on 18 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHISHEK GOYAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.: DLCT01-003319-2023
Criminal Appeal No.: 54/2023
1. JITENDER ANTIL,
S/o. Sh. Rajender Antil,
R/o. VPO Mehandipur,
PS. Murthal, District Sonepat,
Haryana.
2. SANJAY KUMAR,
S/o. Sh. Ram Karan,
R/o. VPO Mehandipur,
PS. Murthal, District Sonepat,
Haryana. ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI). ... RESPONDENT
Date of filing : 03.03.2023
Date of institution : 04.03.2023
Date when judgment was reserved : 22.05.2025
Date when judgment is pronounced : 18.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter, referred to as 'Cr.P.C./Code') against the judgment dated 19.01.2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned judgment'), passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-02/Ld. MM-02, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ld. Trial Court/Ld. MM') in case bearing; 'State v. Jitender Antil, Etc., Cr. Case No. 296641/2016', arising out of FIR No. 887/2014, PS. Timarpur, convicting the appellants, namely, Jitender Antil and Sanjay Kumar (hereinafter collectively referred to as the 'appellants') for the offence(s) punishable under Section 33 of the CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 1 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.18 15:33:43 +0530 Delhi Excise Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'Delhi Excise Act/DE Act/Excise Act') read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'), and the consequent order of sentence dated 09.02.2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order'), passed by the Ld. Trial Court, sentencing/awarding the appellants, rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 (one) year along with fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), each, for the said offence, and in default of payment of the said fine/amount, both to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 02 (two) month. The appellants were further permitted, benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. (hereinafter impugned judgment and impugned order are collectively referred to as the 'impugned judgment and order').
2. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution against the appellants is that on 29.12.2014, on receipt of PCR Call vide DD No. 34A, the concerned police officials reached at the spot, i.e., Gopalpur Red Light (hereinafter referred to as the 'spot'), where they met with the complainant, namely, Ct. Khushal ( hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant'). Thereupon, Ct. Khushal handed over two persons, namely, Jitender Antil and Sanjay Kumar (the appellants herein) to the concerned police officials and got his statement recorded. Notably, under his complaint/statement, the complainant inter alia asserted that on 29.12.2014 at around 08:30 p.m., he was present at the spot, while on patrolling duty. At that point in time, the complainant is asserted to have observed that one silver colour Honda City car bearing registration no. DL-6CJ-2999 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said car/vehicle in question/offending vehicle') overtook all the vehicles present at the redlight and endeavored to cross the same (तो देखा कि Red Light पर एक DL6CJ 2999 Colour NW Silver Honda City Car Old Model सभी CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 2 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.18 15:33:49 +0530 गाड़ियो जो Red Light पर खड़ी थी को Pass करता हु आ सबसे आगे आया व Red Light को पार करने लगा). Upon this, the complainant is avowed to have forcefully stopped the said vehicle and apprehended the driver thereof, whose identity was later on revealed as Jitender Antil (appellant no. 1), whilst the person sitting on the seat next to the driver's seat was determined to be Sanjay Kumar (appellant no. 2). The complainant further proclaimed that on checking the said car, illegal alcohol was determined/found, regarding which, information was given telephonically by the complainant to the Duty Officer, PS. Timarpur (चैक करने पर इस कार में अवैध शराब भरी मिली जिसकी बाबत मैं नें DO Timarpur साहब को बजरिये टे लिफोन इतला दी थी). It is further the case of the prosecution, on checking the said car, pettis (cartons) of illegal alcohol were found in the dickey and cabin of the said vehicle, besides, some open addha (375 ml) bottles were found in the dickey thereof (जो चैक करने पर Honda City Car No. DL-6CJ-2999 की डिग्गी व Cabin में नाजायज शराब की पेटी भरी थी तथा डिग्गी में कु छ खुले अध्धे थे।). Further, as per the prosecution, some public persons were asked to join the search and recovery proceedings, however, no one is asserted to have joined the said proceedings (मन SI ने तीन चार राहगुजरान को शामिल कार्यवाही होने को कहा जो सभी अपनी-2 जायज मजबूरी जाहिर करके बिना नाम पता बताऐ मौका पर से चले गये।). Consequently, the opened 72 addha (375 ml) bottles, whereupon, particulars, i.e., 'rasila santra masaledaar desi sharab', NV Distilleries Ltd., bottled by NV Distilleries Ltd. and Batch No. 565/14, dt. 12.14, were specified, were kept in a plastic bag/ katta in four batches, i.e., batch no. 510 with 16 addha; batch no. 565 with 23 addha; batch no. 567 with 12 addha; and batch no. 585 with 17 addha, each containing 375 ml. alcohol (समय को जाया न करते हु ऐ Car की डिग्गी से खुले बिना पेटी 72 अध्धे मिले जिन पर रसीला सन्तरा मसालेदार देशी शराब लिखा है। जो सभी बरामदा 72 अध्धो को एक प्लास्टिक के कट्टे में रखे CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 3 of 40 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.18 15:33:55 +0530 गये है जो इस कट्टे में Batch No. 510 के 16, Batch 565 के 23, 567 के 12 व 585 के 17 अध्धे है। जिनमें प्रत्येक पर 375 ML शराब है।). Thereafter, 24 (twenty four) pettis were recovered, each found containing 50-50 quarters/paua (180 ml) alcohol (इसके बाद 24 Peti NV की बरामद हु ई जिनमें प्रत्येक 50-50 Quarters है।). Markedly, as per the prosecution, on each such bottles, 'rasila santra masaledaar desi sharab' were written and the same were determined to be of batch nos. 463, 464, and 518/14 (जो प्रत्येक पव्वे पर रसीला संतरा मसालेदार देसी शराब Batch No. 463,464,518/14 के है।). Thereafter, 5 (five) pettis of addha and 9 (nine) pettis of 'nimbu addha' were seized, which were each found containing 24-24 addha bottles. Correspondingly, sample bottles from each of the pettis were taken out as well as labelled and seized, whereupon sample seal was placed, and the seal was handed over to Ct. Rahul (कट्टा व नमुना जात के मुहं को सफे द कपड़े से बाधंकर UA की मौहर से सर्वमोहर किया गया व मोहर गा इस्तेमाल Const. Rahul No. 2709/N के हवाले की गयी।). Concomitantly, Form M-29 was filled on the spot and the recovered illegal alcohol was seized by the police officials.
2.1. Ergo, under aforesaid facts and circumstances, the instant FIR came to be registered, and investigation ensued. Notably, during the course of investigation, site plan was prepared, and the statements of various witnesses were recorded. Correspondingly, as per the prosecution, the ownership of the aforesaid car was determined to be in the name of one, Subhash Chandra, who was determined to be evading his arrest. Consequently, accused Subhash Chandra was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 04.04.2016 by the concerned Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Courts, Central District (मुल्जिम सुभाष चन्द्र गाडी न० DL6CJ2999 subsequent owner है जो काफी तलाश पर भी नही मिल सका था। जिसको दिनांक 04.04.2016 को माननीय अदालत श्री पवन कु मार MM, Tis Hazari CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 4 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.08.18 15:33:59 +0530 Court ने PO Declare किया है।). Concomitantly, FSL report qua the chemical analysis of the seized samples was obtained. Accordingly, upon conclusion of investigation in the instant case, the chargesheet came to be filed before the Ld. Trial Court. 2.2. Markedly, upon such chargesheet being filed, Ld. Trial Court vide its order dated 09.05.2016 took cognizance of the offence(s), specified thereunder and subsequently, on compliance of the provisions under Section 207 Cr.P.C., arguments on charge were addressed by/on behalf of the appellants and the State. Consequently, vide order dated 02.08.2018, Ld. Trial Court, directed framing of charges inter alia under the following observations;
"...Arguments on point of charge submitted. Vide separate order both the accused persons are charged for offence punishable u/s. 33 of Delhi Excise Act r/w. Sec. 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To come up for PE on ..."
(Emphasis supplied) 2.3. Apposite at this stage to reproduce the charges framed against the appellants by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 02.08.2018, as under;
"...I, ***, Metropolitan Magistrate-02, (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, do hereby charge you Jitender Antil S/o. Rajender Antil and Sanjay Kumar S/o. Ram Karan as under:
That on 29.12.2014 at about 8.30 PM at the red light of Gopalpur Village, Timar Pur, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Timar Pur you Jitender was driving one Honda City car bearing No. DL6CJ 2999 and Sanjay was present in the car with you and you both in furtherance of your common intention were carrying illicit liquor in the car which was a total of 41 cartons/petties of different descriptions as per the seizure memo without any license or permit and you thereby committed an offence u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act r/w sec. 34 IPC within the cognizance of this court.
CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 5 of 40 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.18 15:34:04 +0530
I hereby direct you to be tried by this court for the aforesaid offence..."
(Emphasis supplied) 2.4. Relevantly, during the course of trial, the prosecution adduced 06 (six) prosecution witnesses, i.e., PW-1/HC Rahul Khokher; PW-2/HC Khushal Singh; PW-3/HC Ram Niwas; PW-4/Jasvinder Singh; PW-5/SI (Retd.) Usman Ali; and PW-6/HC Jaswant. Pertinent to note that during the course of trial before the Ld. Trial Court, the appellants, admitted the genuineness and correctness of Excise Lab Report No. SZD020698-SZD020739 as Ex. AD1, in terms of the provisions under Section 294 Cr.P.C. on 22.09.2022, leading to the Ld. Trial Court dropping Dy. Chemical Examiner Bijender Singh from the list/array of prosecution witnesses. Subsequently, in conclusion of recording of prosecution evidence, statements of the appellants, in terms of the provisions under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 23.12.2022. Significantly, both the appellants opted not to lead any evidence in support of their cause/DE. Ergo, upon the appellants and the State addressing/concluding their respective arguments in the instant case, as aforementioned, the Ld. Trial Court vide holding the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act read with Section 34 IPC under the impugned judgment, sentenced them in the manner, as specified under the impugned order/order of sentence.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment and order were passed by the Ld. Trial Court, without application of mind, making the same illegal, unjustified and against all cannons of law. As per Ld. Counsel, the impugned judgment is incorrect both on facts as well as in law, making the same liable to be set aside at the outset. It was further CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 6 of 40 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.18 15:34:08 +0530 submitted that the Ld. Trial Court erred in not appreciating the facts and circumstances of the present case, rather, passed the impugned judgment and order in utter haste and that too in contravention of the settled principles of law. As per the Ld. Counsel, while passing the impugned judgment and order, the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that no material and/or evidence was placed/brought before it, necessitating and/or validating the conviction of the appellants under Section 33 of Delhi Excise Act read with Section 34 IPC. In this regard, it was further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court, in the absence of material and evidence, wrongly/erroneously relied upon the unproved facts and wrongly convicted as well as sentenced the appellants. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court, while rendering the impugned judgment and order, not only ignored the facts before it, rather, also overlooked the settled position of law that in case, where two alternatives/views are equally possible, court(s) must accept the view which is favorable to the accused. As per the Ld. Counsel, the Ld. Trial Court has further disregarded the settled position of law that in a case where reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt, benefit of the same cannot be withheld from an accused. Even otherwise, as per the Ld. Counsel, the arguments and judicial dictates, relied upon by/on behalf of the appellants were not considered by the Ld. Trial Court, while reaching the conclusion of guilt of the appellants. Ld. Counsel for the appellants further submitted that while passing the impugned judgment and order, the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are unreliable, besides the same are not sufficient to prove appellants' guilt, 'beyond reasonable doubt' in the instant case.
3.1. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the version of CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 7 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.18 15:34:13 +0530 incident put forth by various prosecution witnesses is completely irreconcilable and is insufficient to attract any culpability against the appellants herein. In this regard, Ld. Counsel outrightly contended that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that there are only two 'star witnesses' of the prosecution's case, i.e., PW-2/HC Kushal Singh and PW-5/Retd. SI Usman Ali (IO of the case) and that their depositions are totally contrary to each other.
As per the Ld. Counsel, PW-2/HC Kushal Singh asserted under his cross examination that he sat inside the car, which was being plied by appellant no. 1 and found alleged illicit liquor in petti (boxes) inside the front two seats. However, as per the Ld. Counsel, the said version of PW-2 is utterly unreliable as the vehicle, allegedly used in the offence is of low height and the said petti (boxes) cannot be inserted inside the front two seats of the said vehicle. Even otherwise, as per the Ld. Counsel, it is the own version of PW-2 that the remaining alleged illicit liquor was recovered from the dickey of the car. In this regard, it was further fervently argued by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants that not only is the version of alleged incident, deposed by PW-2 contradictory to the version put forth by PW-5 under his deposition, rather, the prosecution/said witness(es) have failed to prove any genuine endeavor to join public persons in the alleged search and seizure proceedings. In fact, as per the Ld. Counsel, PW-2, nowhere under his deposition asserted that he was assisted by someone from the public in unloading the alleged illicit liquor from the appellants' car. As per the Ld. Counsel, same is despite the fact that admittedly the place of alleged occurrence remained thickly congested and the vehicles as well as pedestrians used to wander in the said passage at all point in time. Ergo, despite the same, Ld. Counsel vehemently reiterated that no public witnesses/shopkeepers and persons in the CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 8 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.18 15:34:17 +0530 vicinity of alleged spot of occurrence were joined during the investigation, besides, the concerned investigating officer/IO did not even attempt to obtain the record(s), i.e., names/particulars of any such public persons, who could have been joined or those who refused to join the investigation, upon being asked, as well as no CCTV footage of the alleged incident spot, which could have facilitated the court in the ascertaining the correct factual scenario of the case, was retrieved and/or placed on record by the prosecution. Accordingly, as per the Ld. Counsel the possibility of the alleged recovery, being planted upon the appellants cannot be ruled out under such circumstances.
3.2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that even the material placed on record by the prosecution is insufficient to bring home any culpability against the appellants herein. In this regard, Ld. Counsel strenuously contended that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that though it is the case of the prosecution that appellant no. 1 was plying Honda City Car bearing no. DL-6CJ-2999 and that the same was seized by the police officials as well as later on released on superdari to its owner, after taking its photographs, however, the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that when the said photographs were shown to the witness during evidence, no number plate was shown on the said vehicle, creating doubt on the version of the prosecution.
Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, the photographs of the case property (liquor), exhibited as Ex. P1 (Colly.) do not show the exact numbers of pettis (boxes) or even the liquor bottles are visible in the same. Concomitantly, as per the Ld. Counsel, no katta (gunny bag) was visible in the said photographs, belying the case pf the prosecution. Correspondingly, as per the Ld. Counsel, the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the prosecution failed CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 9 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.08.18 15:34:23 +0530 to produce the Chemical Analyzer, who allegedly evaluated/checked the samples of the alleged illicit liquor. Ergo, as per the Ld. Counsel, the report of the Chemical Analyzer remained unproved, favoring the case of the appellants. It was further submitted that even the search and seizure proceedings were not properly conducted by the concerned police officials/IO in the instant case. In this regard, it was submitted that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the IO had taken a bottle from each petti and the same was sent for chemical examination, however, the other bottles were not proved to contain alcohol. Ld. Counsel further submitted that PW-1 claimed under his deposition that 38 (thirty eight) pettis (24+5+9) of liquor and one katta, containing 72 (seventy two) quarter bottles were recovered from the possession of the appellants. However, despite the same, only 42 (forty two) samples were sent for forensic analysis/FSL, creating contradiction in the version put forth before the Ld. Trial Court. As per the Ld. Counsel, as per the mandate of the superior courts, sample from each such bottle should have been sent for chemical examination, so as to successfully bring home charges/culpability against the appellants herein. However, Ld. Counsel asserted that the said mandate was not followed by the prosecution in the instant case.
3.3. Ld. Counsel further vehemently reiterated that the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the concerned IO/police officials did not follow due procedure while conducting search and seizure proceedings. In this regard, Ld. Counsel asserted that the concerned IO did not keep the sample of alleged recovered liquor before destroying the entire case property and the sample of alleged recovery ought to have been produced during evidence to prove the case property. However, as per Ld. Counsel, in the CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 10 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.18 15:34:28 +0530 instant case, no proper procedure was followed by the prosecution/IO in the present case. Correspondingly, as per the Ld. Counsel, there are material contractions in the alleged time of occurrence, wherein, though, as per the prosecution the incident is alleged to have taken place at around 08:30 p.m., on 29.12.2014, however, the time of occurrence is specified as 07:30 p.m. on the rukka. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, despite the information of the alleged occurrence having reached at the police station at 10:45 p.m., the reasons for the FIR number, being specified on various documents/seizure and recovery memos in the instant case is not forthcoming. Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, Ld. Counsel for the appellants echoed that not only did the Ld. Trial Court fail to consider the truth of circumstances and passed its judgment/decision in haste, rather, did not properly appreciate/examine the facts of the present case, wrongly holding the appellants guilty of the aforementioned offences. Even otherwise, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the order of sentence was also passed by the Ld. Trial Court, whimsically, while failing to appreciate that the appellants were of young age at the relevant point in time, as well as responsible for the look after and take care of their respective family members. Ld. Counsel further vehemently argued that the punishment/penalty must not be retributive in nature, rather, humanizing, considering that sentencing the appellants with severe sentence would subject their family members to grave depravity. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, substantial time has lapsed since the incident in question and in case relaxation/leniency is not afforded to the appellants, serious/severe repercussions may ensue to their physical and mental well-being. Consequently, the Ld. Counsel for the appellants inter alia prayed that the present appeal be allowed, and CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 11 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.18 15:34:32 +0530 the impugned judgment and order be set aside. In the alternate, Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellants be permitted/granted the benefit/relaxation in terms of the provisions under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Probation of Offenders Act') and/or Section 360 Cr.P.C. In support of the said contentions, reliance was placed upon the decision(s) in; Shambu Hindurao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 (1) JCC (SC)
542.
4. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the impugned judgment and order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court after due appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in consonance with the settled judicial precedents. Ld. Addl. PP for the State further submitted that the testimony of the witnesses brought forth on record are not only unblemished and consistent, rather, unerringly point out towards the only inference of guilt of the appellants. Further, as per the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, omission of joining public witnesses, at the stage of apprehension and recovery from the appellants is not detrimental to the prosecution case, especially when the same stands duly proved from the consistent testimonies of witnesses adduced by the prosecution. Even otherwise, as per the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the appellants have failed to rebut the onus of prove, as envisaged under Section 52 of the Delhi Excise Act. Concomitantly, it was submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that no ground of any indulgence or relaxation even in the sentence granted to the appellants is made out, besides considering the gravity of offence involved, the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of the provisions under the Probation of Offenders Act. Accordingly, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed at the outset, as grossly malicious CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 12 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.18 15:34:37 +0530 and devoid of merits.
5. The arguments of Ld. Counsel for the appellants as well as that of Ld. Addl. PP for the State have been heard and the record(s), including the Trial Court Record and the case law(s), relied by the party(ies) as well as the written submissions/arguments, filed on behalf of the appellants have been thoroughly perused.
6. At the outset, this Court deems it apposite to enunciate the scope of jurisdiction of this Court in an appeal against conviction. In this regard, this Court it is pertinent to outrightly make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padam Singh v. State of U.P., (2000) 1 SCC 621, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while delving into the 'scope ans ambit' of appellate court's jurisdiction inter alia noted as under;
"2. ... It is the duty of an appellate court to look into the evidence adduced in the case and arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence can be relied upon or not and even if it can be relied upon, then whether the prosecution can be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the said evidence. The credibility of a witness has to be adjudged by the appellate court in drawing inference from proved and admitted facts. It must be remembered that the appellate court, like the trial court, has to be satisfied affirmatively that the prosecution case is substantially true and the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt as the presumption of innocence with which the accused starts, continues right through until he is held guilty by the final court of appeal and that presumption is neither strengthened by an acquittal nor weakened by a conviction in the trial court..."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Correspondingly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Narendra Bhat v. State of Karnataka, (2009) 17 SCC 785, iterated in respect of the foregoing as under;
"3. This Court has in a series of judgments held that a court exercising appellate power must not only CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 13 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.18 15:34:41 +0530 consider questions of law but also questions of fact and in doing so it must subject the evidence to a critical scrutiny. The judgment of the High Court must show that the Court really applied its mind to the facts of the case as particularly when the offence alleged is of a serious nature and may attract a heavy punishment."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. Quite evidently, from a conjoint reading of the aforenoted judicial dictates it can be perspicuously deduced that the jurisdiction of this Court in an appeal extends to reappreciation of the entire material placed on record of the trial court and to arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence can be relied upon or not. In fact, as aforenoted, court(s), while exercising appellate power is not required to consider the question of law, rather, also question of facts to affirmatively reach a conclusion of guilt or innocence of an accused. In fact, it is trite law1 that non-re-appreciation of the evidence on record in an appeal may affect the case of either the prosecution or even the accused. Needless to reemphasize that the appellate court is to be further wary of fact that presumption of innocence of an accused, even extents until an accused is held guilty by the final court of appeal and that such a presumption is neither strengthened by an acquittal nor weakened by a conviction in the trial court.
9. Therefore, being wary of the aforesaid principles, however, before proceeding with the determination of the rival contentions of the parties, it would be pertinent to reproduce the relevant provisions under law/Delhi Excise Act/DE Act, as under;
"2. Definition-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires;
*** *** *** (17) "country or traditional liquor" means plain or spiced spirit which has been manufactured in India from material recognized as base for country or 1 State of Gujarat v. Bhalchandra Laxmishankar Dave, (2021) 2 SCC 735.CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 14 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.18 15:34:46 +0530 traditional spirit namely mahua, rice, gur, molasses etc. and notified as such liquor by the Government;
*** *** *** (39) "Indian liquor" means liquor manufactured in India by process of distillation or using alcohol obtained by distillation such as whisky, brandy, rum, gin, vodka, liqueurs, but does not include country liquor or fermented liquor;
(40) "intoxicant" means and includes-,
(a) any liquor;
(b) any spirit;
(c) any intoxicating drug;
(d) any other article, which the Government may from time to time declare to be intoxicant, except the substances covered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for the purpose of this Act;
*** *** *** (43) "Licence" means a licence granted under this Act and the rules framed thereunder;
*** *** *** (46) "liquor" means any Alcoholic beverage and includes whisky, brandy, beer, wine, toddy, tari, pachwat, vodka, gin, tequila, country liquor, arrack and intoxicating liquid consisting of or containing alcohol as may be specified under BIS standard besides any similar substance which the Government may by notification declare to be liquor for the purpose of this Act;
*** *** ***
33. Penalty for unlawful import, export, transport, manufacture, possession, sale, etc.-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 work; any manufactory or warehouse;
(c) bottles any liquor or 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 today or tan;
(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 CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 15 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.18 15:34:51 +0530 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 lakh rupees..."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. Significantly, it is observed from above that Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act inter alia penalizes possession of any intoxicant beyond the prescribed quantity, i.e., in contravention of the provisions of the said enactment as well as the rules made thereunder. In turn, the term, 'intoxicant' is defined under Section 2(40) of DE Act to mean and include any liquor, which term (liquor), is defined under Section 2(46) of the said enactment as, "any Alcoholic beverage and includes whisky, brandy, beer, wine, toddy, tari, pachwat, vodka, gin, tequila, country liquor, arrack and intoxicating liquid consisting of or containing alcohol as may be specified under BIS standard besides any similar substance which the Government may by notification declare to be liquor for the purpose of this Act..." Clearly, the objective behind the said provision, can be intelligibly deduced is to regulate the importation, exportation, transportation, manufacture, possession, sale, etc. of intoxicant, including liquor and to provide for penalties/sanctions for contravention of the mandate prescribed under the law as well as the rules made thereunder. Undoubtedly, the superior courts2 have persistently avowed that the acts of bootlegging and illegal sale of liquor, contrary to the provisions of Delhi Excise Act, is a big menace to the society and that the same needs to dealt with a 'heavy hand'. However, while construing and 2 Monika v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors. (03.10.2024 - DELHC): MANU/DE/6894/2024.
CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 16 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.18 15:34:55 +0530
applying the penal provisions under the DE Act in a given case, courts are obligated to be wary of the hallowed principle3 of law that penal provisions are required to be construed strictly.
11. Ergo, being cognizant of the principles hereinunder noted, this Court would proceed with the determination of the merits of the case, in view of the rival contentions of Ld. Counsel for the appellants and that of Ld. Addl. PP for the State. In particular, this Court deems it apposite to outrightly make a reference to the deposition of PW-1/HC Rahul Khokher, who deposed that on 29.12.2014, he was posted as Constable at PS. Timarpur and on that day, at around 08:45 p.m., ASI Usman Ali, received information vide DD No. 34A, regarding apprehension of two persons with illicit liquor in one vehicle at Gopalpur red light by Ct. Khushal. Further, as per PW-1, he along with ASI Usman Ali reached at the said spot, where one car of Honda City make, bearing registration no. DL-6CJ-2999 was found and Ct. Khushal produced two persons before ASI Usman Ali. It was further deposed by PW-1 that on interrogation, the said persons revealed their identities as Sanjay and Jitender. Correspondingly, as per PW-1, the IO searched the said car, where 24 (twenty four) pettis (cartons) of masaledar liquor in quarter bottles were found in a dickey (car's boot) and 72 (seventy two) quarter bottles were found kept in one katta in car's boot. As per PW-1, 05 (five) other pettis (cartons) of different make and 09 (nine) other petties (cartons) of quarter bottles were also found lying in dickey. Thereafter, as per PW-1, the IO recorded the statement of Ct. Kushal, as well as prepared the rukka, which was handed over to him/PW-1 for the registration of FIR. Consequently, as per PW-1, he took the 3 Emp. State Insurance Corporation v. H.M.T. Ltd. & Ors. (11.01.2008 - SC): MANU/SC/0488/2008.
CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 17 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.18 15:34:59 +0530
same/rukka to the police station and got the FIR registered. Thereafter, as per PW-1, he returned to the spot along with copy of FIR and original rukka, which was handed over to the IO. PW-1 further testified that the IO seized the car vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A and also counted the quarter bottles in each pettis and took one sample bottles from each of the pettis. Correspondingly, as per PW-1, the case property was sealed with the seal of 'UA' and the sample bottles were also sealed with the seal of 'UA', after wrapping them in white cloth. Thereafter, as per PW-1, the IO seized the case property vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B and after interrogation, the IO is further asserted to have arrested the accused persons/appellants as well as conducted their personal search vide memos Ex. PW1/C, Ex. PW1/D, Ex. PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F. Further, as per PW-1, the IO also got the appellants medically examined and deposited the case property in malkhana. Pertinently, PW-1 identified the case property, i.e., recovered illicit liquor from their photographs (Ex. P1 (Colly.)), considering that the original case property was already destroyed pursuant to order dated 11.05.2018, issued by the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner, Excise, New Delhi. Correspondingly, PW-1 also correctly identified the appellants as the apprehended accused persons, as well as the Honda City car, used by the appellants from its photograph (Ex. P2), before the Ld. Trial Court.
12. Pertinently, during the course of his cross examination, PW-1, affirmed as under;
"XXXXXX by ***, Id. Counsel for accused. I do not remember whether secret informer had told to the IO any particulars or the registration number of the vehicle in which illicit liquor was found. When the accused was apprehended I was not present at the spot. Vol. I was present in PS and after CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 18 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.18 15:35:03 +0530 receiving the information, I along with IO went to the spot. Ct. Khusal alone was present at the spot when I along with IO reached there. 41 petties were recovered from the vehicle. When I reached on the spot above said petties of illicit liquor was lying in the boot/dicky space only of the vehicle. We departed on bike from the PS at about 08:40 PM for the spot. We reached within 5-6 minutes. I do not remember whether accused persons were sitting in the car or was standing outside the car. I, IO and Ct. Khusal checked the vehicle. No other illicit liquor found from any other part of the vehicle. I left the spot at about 10:30 PM for registration of FIR. IO prepared all the documents at the spot while sitting on the bike. IO prepared documents after registration of FIR. IO did not prepare any other document except rukka before registration of FIR. IO prepared rukka in my presence. Finally we left the spot at after 12 midnight. IO had informed one of the relative/friend of the accused about his arrest but I cannot tell the name of that person. I had signed all the documents after reading the same. IO had mentioned number of the seized case property, however, I do not remember the serial numbers. I had refreshed my memory before deposition. It is wrong to suggest that I am not aware about the serial number as IO did not give serial number to the seized property. It is wrong to suggest that I do not know have any knowledge about the content mentioned in seizure memo Ex. PWI/B as same was not prepared in my presence and later on. I had signed the same at the instance of IO. Whatever I have stated in my examination in chief is correct account of incident which was happened before me. It is wrong to suggest that case property has not been recovered from the vehicle or that same has been planted on the accused in order to implicate in present case or that all the paper work is done at PS or that I did not visit the spot at any point of time. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely..."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. Here, this Court deems it further apposite to refer to the deposition of PW-2/HC Khushal Singh/complainant, who avowed before the Ld. Trial Court that on 29.12.2014, he was posted at Constable at PS. Timarpur and that on the said day, he/PW-2 was posted at Gopalpur Red Light, outer ring road. Further, as per PW-2, at around 07:30 p.m., when he was present, CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 19 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.18 15:35:08 +0530 alone, at Gopalpur Red Light, he noticed that the driver of one car of Honda City make and bearing registration no. DL-6CJ-2999, was trying to jump/cross red light. Consequently, PW-2 asserted that he gave a signal to the said car, upon which the same stopped. Thereafter, as per PW-2, noticed that there were 02 (two) persons sitting in the said car, including its driver. As per PW-2, he apprehended the driver of the said car and on inquiry, he found illicit liquor, kept in said car. Consequently, as per PW-2, he shared the said information with PS. Timarpur, whereupon ASI Usman Ali along with Ct. Rahul reached at the spot. PW-1 further avowed that he disclosed the whole incident to the IO, who recorded the statement (Ex. PW2/A) of the complainant/PW-2. Further, as per PW-2, he produced both the accused before the IO and the IO searched the said car, where illicit liquor was found in the dickey (said car's boot). PW-2 further proclaimed that thereafter, they counted the bottles of illicit liquor. Pertinently, PW-2 correctly identified the appellants as the accused persons, before the Ld. Trial Court. Correspondingly, PW-2 also identified the case property, i.e., illicit liquor from its photographs (Ex. P1 (colly)) and the Honda City car, asserted to be used by appellants from its photograph (Ex. P2), during the course of his deposition before the Ld. Trial Court. Significantly, upon being cross examined, by/on behalf of the appellants, PW-2 asserted as under;
"XXXXXX by ***, Id. Counsel for accused. On that day I was on beat duty/foot patrolling duty and my duty was from 10:00 AM to 12 midnight. On that day I was carrying pistol with me. I carry my service revolver on daily basis. Beat No. 6 covers 2-3 kms of the area. On that day I departed from PS at about 05:30 PM and reached at red light at about 08:00-08:15 PM. I signaled them from the side of the road to stop the vehicle and he stopped the vehicle at the distance of 4-5 meters. Accused persons did not try to flee from the spot. Jitender was sitting on the CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 20 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.08.18 15:35:12 +0530 drive seat. Firstly, I had asked the Jitender that what he is carrying in the vehicle. I do not ask such question to everyone to whom I stop for checking. I had asked generally to the accused that what he was carrying in his vehicle. I did not notice anything in the offending vehicle which is against the law. After asking this question from the accused, I myself opened the door of the vehicle and sat beside the accused persons as I had got suspicion. I had found illicit liquor under both seats of front side. I do not remember that how many petties of illicit liquor noticed under the seat. I do not remember the colour and size of the petties containing illicit liquor. Today I refreshed my memory from the police file..."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. Germane for the present discourse to refer to the deposition of PW-3/HC Ram Niwas, who proved the recording of DD Entry 34A as well as the registration of FIR in the instant case. In particular, PW-3 deposed that on 29.12.2014, he was posted as Head Constable at PS. Timarpur and, was working as Duty Officer from 04:00 p.m. to 12 midnight. On that day, as per PW-3, at about 08:36 p.m., a call was received by him/PW-3 regarding apprehension of accused along with illicit liquor in Honda City car, bearing registration no. DL-6CJ-2999 at Gopal Pur Red Light. Further, as per PW-3, he reduced the said information in writing vide DD No. 34A (copy proved as Ex. PW3/A), which was marked to ASI Usman Ali. PW-3 further deposed that ASI Usman Ali went to the place of incident along with Ct. Rahul. Correspondingly, as per PW-3, on the same night, at around 10:45 p.m., he received rukka from Ct. Rahul, sent by ASI Usman Ali and on the basis of the same, he/PW-3 registered the instant FIR. PW-3 further produced, the original FIR before the Ld. Trial Court, copy of which is Ex. PW3/B. As per PW-3, he also made an endorsement on the rukka, which is Ex. PW3/C, bearing PW-3's signature at point A. PW-3 further avowed that he issued certificate under CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 21 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.18 15:35:16 +0530 section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Evidence Act'), with respect of the said computerized FIR, which is Ex. PW3/D, bearing PW-3's signature at point A. Correspondingly, PW-3 proclaimed that the copy of FIR and original rukka were given to Ct. Rahul to further hand over the same to ASI Usman Ali for further investigation. Notably, PW-3 was not cross examined by/on behalf of the appellants, despite being afforded opportunity.
15. Significantly, PW-4/Jasvinder Singh deposed that his uncle/Late Sh. Maan Singh was the registered owner of vehicle, i.e., Honda City. PW-4 affirmed that his said uncle had left for heavenly abode and he/PW-4 proved the death certificate of Late Sh. Maan Singh as Ex. PW4/A. PW-4 further proved the said Honda City car from its photograph(s), i.e., Ex. P2, as belonging to Late Sh. Maan Singh. Relevantly, upon being cross-examined, PW-4, proclaimed, as under;
"XXXXXX by ***, Id. Counsel for accused. Photographs Ex. P2 is similar to the vehicle which my uncle Maan Singh was using but I cannot say whether it is the same vehicle or not as vehicle do not bear any registration number. I do not know to whom my uncle had sold the vehicle shown in the photograph. I do not have personal knowledge of this case"
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Correspondingly, reference is made to the deposition of PW-5/SI (Retd.) Usman Ali, who asserted in his testimony that on 29.12.2014, he was posted as Sub-Inspector at PS. Timarpur. Further, as per PW-5, on the said day, at around 08:45 p.m., he received information vide DD No.34A regarding apprehension of two persons with illicit liquor in one vehicle at Gopalpur red light by Ct. Khushal. Thereafter, as per PW-5, he along with Ct. Rahul reached at the said spot, where one car of Honda City make, CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 22 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.18 15:35:20 +0530 bearing registration no. DL-6CJ-2999 was found and Ct. Khushal produced two persons before him/PW-5. On interrogation, as per PW-5, the said persons revealed their names as Sanjay and Jitender, the appellants herein, who were correctly identified by PW-5 before the Ld. Trial Court. Further, as per PW-5, he searched the said car, where they found 41 (forty one) pettis/cartons of desi sharab; 05 (five) pettis of half bottles of 'raseela masaledar desi sharab' make; and 09 (nine) pettis of half bottles of 'nimbu masaledar desi sharab' make; and 24 (twenty four) pettis of 'masaledar' liquor in quarter bottles. Correspondingly, as per PW-5, 72 (seventy two) quarter bottles (24 x 3) were found loose in the offending car. Thereafter, as per PW-5, he counted the bottles in each pettis and took one sample bottles from each of the said pettis. Concomitantly, PW-5 deposed that the case property was sealed with the seal of 'UA' and the sample bottles were also wrapped in white cloth and sealed with the seal of 'UA'. Thereafter, as per PW-5, he seized the case property vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B, bearing PW-5's signatures at point B. As per PW-5, he subsequently, recorded the statement of Ct. Kushal and prepared rukka (Ex. PW5/A), bearing PW-5's signatures at point A. PW-5 further deposed that he handed over the said rukka to Ct. Rahul for registration of FIR and Ct. Rahul took the same to PS. In the meantime, as per PW-5, he prepared the site plan (Ex. PW5/B) at the instance of Ct. Kushal. It was further proclaimed by PW-5 that after some time, Ct. Rahul returned to the spot along with a copy of FIR and original rukka, which was handed over to him/PW-5. Thereafter, as per PW-5, he seized the car vide seizure memo (Ex. PW1/A) and made enquiries from both the appellants as well as arrested them and conducted their personal search vide memos, i.e., Ex. PW1/C, Ex. PW1/D, CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 23 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.18 15:35:24 +0530 Ex. PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F, all bearing PW-5's signatures at point B. PW-5 further avowed that he also recorded the disclosure statements of both the appellants as Ex. PW5/C and Ex. PW5/D, both, bearing PW-5's signatures at point A. As per PW-5, he also seized the documents, i.e., registration certificate and insurance, pertaining to the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-6CJ-2999 vide seizure memos Ex. PW5/E and Ex. PW5/F, both bearing PW-5's signatures at point A. PW-5 further asserted that he also seized the driving licenses of both the appellants vide seizure memos Ex. PW5/G and Ex. PW5/H, both bearing PW-5's signatures at point A; and also seized delivery receipt of offending car vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/I, bearing PW-5's signatures at point A. Thereafter, as per PW-5, he deposited the case property in malkhana and produced both the appellants before the concerned court on the following day. PW-5 further asserted that he along with Ct. Rahul and other police officials went to Gadhi Village in search of Subhash, however, he was found to be not traceable, whereupon, intimation was given to the local police. It was further avowed by PW-5 that proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated against Subhash and later on he was declared proclaimed offender. PW-5 asserted that he conveyed the information to Excise Department, regarding the offending vehicle and the illicit liquor. Concomitantly, as per PW-5, the sample were taken by Ct. Jaswant to the Excise Lab, ITO, Delhi and later on, he/PW-5, received the result (Ex. AD1) from the Excise Lab. Appositely, PW-5 further asserted that after completion of all the formalities and recording of statements of the witnesses, he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the concerned court. PW-5 further identified the case property, i.e., seized liqour bottles from their photographs (Ex. P1 (Colly.)), as the same had already been CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 24 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.18 15:35:29 +0530 destructed by the order dated 11.05.2018 of Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner (Excise), New Delhi. Further, PW-5 also proved the offending vehicle, i.e., Honda car from its photograph (Ex. P2).
17. Remarkably, under his cross-examination, by/on behalf of the appellants, PW-5 declared, as under;
"XXXXXX by ***, Ld. Counsel for accused Sanjay and Jitender.
Duty Officer informed me about the present incident at about 8:35 pm, whose name I do not remember. I do not recall the full name of the then SHO, PS Timar Pur, but his surname was Thakur. I reached at the spot on my own private motorcycle bearing registration no. DL6SAL7546.
*** *** *** I did not obtain any prior permission from my senior officer regarding the use of my private motorcycle. I reached at the spot at about 8:40PM. I met with Ct. Kushal and both accused persons. The distance between the spot and PS is about 800 metres. Public persons were available at the spot. Except Ct. Kushal, I did not confirm from any other witness regarding the apprehension of any other persons who were available at the spot. I prepared arrest memos of both accused persons at about 11PM and obtained signatures of both the accused persons and Ct. Rahul on the above said memos. Information regarding the arrest of both accused persons was conveyed to their respective families. I do not remember the name to whom the information regarding arrest of accused persons was conveyed but the same was mentioned in respective arrest memos. I am not able to recall today as to how much amount was recovered in personal search of both accused persons and the make of the mobile phone. I reached at the PS at 12 midnight but I do not remember the DD number through which I made arrival entry. I could not serve any notice to the public persons who refused to join the investigation team. I produced both the accused persons before the Duty MM concerned on that day. I do not remember the DD entry when we made arrival in PS along with accused after obtaining PC remand. Accused persons were taken to the Gadhi Village for the search of their co-associate namely Subhash but I do not remember the departure DD number and arrival DD number. 1 do not remember the exact address of co-accused Subhash. I do not remember the name the police CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 25 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.18 15:35:33 +0530 officer of the local PS to whom I intimated. I went to the spot along with IO kit. I prepared all the documents at the spot. I sealed the case property at the spot. I did not make any particular DD entry regarding the seizure of the case property.
At this stage, attention of the witness is drawn towards the photograph of the offending vehicle which is already Ex. P2 and has been asked whether the said vehicle bears number plate or not. After seeing the same, witness stated that there is no number plate.
I recorded the disclosure statement in presence of the staff. There were total 42 samples and the same were sent to Excise Lab on 26.02.2015. I deposited the case property into the malkhana however, I do not remember the serial number through which I deposited it. Medical examination of both the accused persons was conducted after their arrest and before reaching the PS. I do not remember how much time it took to conduct the medical examination of both accused persons. There were no CCTV cameras available at the spot.
It is wrong to suggest that I prepared site plan on my own. It is further wrong to suggest that I did not investigate the present matter. It is wrong to suggest that I never arrested the accused persons. It is wrong to suggest that due to altercation with the police officials at red light, the accused persons have been implicated falsely in the present case. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely..."
(Emphasis supplied)
18. Apropos the present discourse to further make a reference to the deposition of PW-6/HC Jaswant, who deposed before the Ld. Trial Court that on 26.02.2015, he was posted as Constable at PS. Timarpur and on the said day, he received the sample of the present matter from the MHC(M) through RC number 2621/15 along with one application regarding the seizure of car bearing registration no. DL-6CJ-2999. As per PW-6, he deposited the same into the Excise Lab, ITO in sealed condition. Further, as per PW-6, as long as the samples remained in his/PW-6's possession, the same were intact and not tampered with. Relevantly, PW-6 proved the road certificate as Ex. PW6/A CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 26 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.18 15:35:38 +0530 qua such conveyance, bearing PW-6's signatures at point A. Apposite to note that PW-6 was not cross examined by/on behalf of the appellants, despite being afforded opportunity.
19. Conspicuously, in light of the foregoing facts and circumstances, this Court would now proceed with the evaluation of the material placed on record, in light of the arguments addressed by/on behalf of the appellants and the State. In particular, this Court would proceed to determine as to whether from the facts and circumstances brought forth, appellants complicity, involvement and participation in the commission of offence under Section 33 of the DE Act read with Section 34 IPC, stands proved beyond reasonable doubt, in the instant case. Apposite, in this regard to outrightly note that the Ld. Trial Court, while reaching the conclusion of the guilt of the appellants has primarily relied on the testimonies of the aforesaid police officials/witnesses, i.e., PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 in light of the settled judicial precedent(s)4 that the absence of public witnesses is neither detrimental nor can be sole reason to throw out or doubt the prosecution's case. However, while doing so the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the inherent grave omissions and lapses in the testimonies of the said witnesses and the material brought forth on record of the Ld. Trial Court. In particular, the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that nowhere under the deposition of any of the prosecution witnesses, it is decipherable as to whether the seal, deployed in seizing the case property was handed over to any independent person/witness, after its use. Strikingly, even the IO/PW-5 did not assert anything under his deposition regarding the handing over of the seal to any independent witness(es) in the 4 Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, 1988 Supp SCC 241.
CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 27 of 40
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.08.18
15:35:43
+0530
instant case. Needless to mention that even no seal handing over memo has either been placed on record of the Ld. Trial Court or even proved by any witness/independent witness in the instant case. In fact, there is nothing on record to indicate in the slightest, any attempt made by any of the prosecution witnesses to hand over the seal to any independent witness. Concomitantly, there is nothing on record to show as to when the seal in question was finally taken back from PW-1, PW-2 or PW-5 or if it remained with them forever. Clearly, the seal during the entire interval reasonably appears to be within the reach of the said police officials and the members of the raiding team, not ruling out a possibility of tampering with the case property under such circumstances. Needless to mention that the same is despite the fact that the superior courts have persistently ruled in favour of proving seal handing over memo in akin cases, to rule out any foul play. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Safiullah v. State (Delhi Admn.), 1992 SCC OnLine Del 516, wherein the Hon'ble Court, whilst being confronted with an akin situation, remarked, as under;
"9. ...The seal after use were kept by the police officials themselves therefore the possibility of tempering 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 tempered with. The prosecution could have proved from the CFSL form itself and from the road certificate as to what articles were taken from the Malkahana. Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused...
*** *** ***
11. It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the seal after use was handed over to the independent witness P.W.5. Even the I.O. P.W.7 does not utter a word regarding the handing over of the seal after use. Therefore, the conclusion which can be arrived at is that the seal remained with the Investigating Officer CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 28 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.08.18 15:35:47 +0530 or with the other member of the raiding party therefore the possibility of interference or tempering of the seal and the contents of the parcel cannot be ruled out. Since the Inspector Omveer Singh, appearing as P.W.-8, has tried to improve his statement in the Court, to my mind, no reliance can be placed on his statement, particularly when the Investigating Officer and the Moharrar Malkhana do not say anything about the deposit of the CFSL form with the Moharrar Malkhana. In these circumstances I am clearly of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove this link evidence to show that the sample parcel was not tampered with the anyone before it was examined by the C.F.S.L. and the benefit of the same must go to the appellant."
(Emphasis supplied)
20. The gravity of the aforesaid circumstances is accentuated by the fact that from a conscientious perusal of the Report of Excise Control Laboratory dated 17.03.2015 (Ex. AD1, duly admitted by the appellants under Section 294 Cr.P.C., without admitting the allegations of prosecution), it is observed that the samples seized by the IO are asserted to be forwarded to the said lab on 26.02.2015, despite the same being asserted to be seized as early as on 29.12.2014 (Ex. PW1/B). In this regard, reference is made to the hearing of the said report, which explicitly records that the same pertains to, "...sample(s) of forty two (42 sealed samples) along with duly filled form M-29, in connection with the FIR No. 887/14 dated 29.12.2014 under IPC sec. 33 Delhi Excise Act, 2009 stated by you have been dispatched on 26.02.2015 per messenger and duly received in this office on 26.02.2015...". Notably, the dispatch and conveyance of said samples from the malkhana to the Excise Control Laboratory on 26.02.2015 is further proved under the deposition of PW-6/HC Jaswant, who inter alia deposed that on 26.02.2015, while he was posted as Constable at PS. Timarpur, he received sample of the present matter from the MHC(M) through RC number 2621/15 along with CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 29 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.18 15:35:51 +0530 one application regarding the seizure of car bearing registration no. DL-6CJ-2999 and, deposited the same into the Excise Lab, ITO in sealed condition. Accordingly, under such circumstances, the delay in sending the samples for scrutiny from their seizure on 29.12.2014 till their final dispatch for analysis on 26.02.2015 is not forthcoming/explainable from the material placed on record. Quite evidently, all this while, the sample property was admittedly stated to be at the malkhana, where a possibility of tampering cannot be ruled out. In fact, in this regard, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rishi Dev v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1800 , explicitly observed as under;
"20. This Court is unable to agree with the approach adopted by the trial court, especially its observations highlighted above. The record of the case should contain entry in writing about the sample being sent for testing within the time specified by the Narcotic Control Bureau. A strict compliance of this requirement has to be insisted upon. The reason is this. The sample that is kept in a police malkhana, under the seals of the police officers themselves, is still definitely under the control of those police officers. There is every possibility that the samples could be tampered and again re-sealed by the very same officers by again affixing their seals. It is to prevent this from happening that earlier the sample is sent for testing to the CFSL the better.
21. The delay in sending samples to the CFSL has to be properly explained by the prosecution and further, such explanation can be accepted only where the prosecution shows that it made a genuine attempt to send the sample to the CFSL forthwith and that because of the excessive workload of the CFSL, the sample was returned and was unable to be tested. The record must show that such an attempt was made and the sample was returned for reasons not of the making of the prosecution. The lacuna in this regard cannot be permitted to be made up by oral evidence..."
(Emphasis supplied)
21. Unmistakably, in light of the foregoing, in particular, from the factum of non-production/proof of handing over of the CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 30 of 40 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.18 15:35:55 +0530 seal to any independent witness as well as of delay in conveyance of the sample property from the malkhana to the Excise Control Laboratory, this Court is of the considered opinion that a possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out in the instant case. Needless to further mention in this regard, that the situation becomes even more troublesome in the instant case as the prosecution did not endeavor to prove the submission, safe custody and deposit-removal of the case property as well as sample property in the present case by adducing the concerned MHC(M) as one of the prosecution witnesses. Correspondingly, even the entry by which the case property was deposited in malkhana is not forthcoming on record. Pertinent, in this regard to note that though, PW-5 asserted during his cross-examination that he had deposited the case property in the malkhana, however, PW-5 expressed inability to recollect the serial number via/against which the said case property was deposited. Ergo, under such circumstances, this Court finds itself difficult to concede with the finding of the Ld. Trial Court that the testimony of PW-6/HC Jaswant is sufficient to prove safe custody of the case property/sample property and same being not tampered with. The reasons for same are quite comprehensible as it is not the case of the prosecution that PW-6 was the custodian of the case property/sample property, during the entire interregnum period from its seizure on 26.12.2014 till its conveyance to the Excise Control Laboratory on 26.02.2015 by him/PW-6. Inevitably, in the considered opinion of this Court, PW-6 is not competent to either prove the factum of safe custody of the case property/sample property or that of the same being not tampered with, whilst lying at the malkhana.
22. Correspondingly, this Court is in concurrence with the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the appellants that there are CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 31 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.18 15:36:00 +0530 serious, material and significant lacunae in the prosecution case, determinable from the conscientious scrutiny of the testimonies of various prosecution witnesses. In particular, concedes with the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the appellants that the prosecution has not been able to prove the exact number of cartons/pettis, allegedly recovered from the possession of the appellants in the instant case. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that PW-1 asserted under his cross-examination by/on behalf of the appellants that 41 (forty one) pettis/cartons of illicit liquor were recovered from the vehicle in question. However, under his examination-in-chief, PW-1 avowed that from the said vehicle/offending vehicle, 24 (twenty four) pettis (cartons) of masaledar liquor in quarter bottles; 05 (five) other pettis (cartons) of different make; and 09 (nine) other petties (cartons) of quarter bottles were also found lying in dickey/offending vehicle's boot, besides, in the car's boot, 72 (seventy two) quarter bottles were found kept in one katta/gunny bag. Appositely, PW-5 deposed on the same lines that 41 (forty one) pettis/cartons of illicit liquor were seized from the offending vehicle and from each of the seized pettis, one sample bottle was seized. Quite surprisingly, from a scrupulous analysis of the material placed on record, it is seen that 42 (forty two) samples, stated to be retrieved from one petti each, were sent for forensic/chemical analysis with the Excise Control Laboratory.
Ergo, under such circumstances, the disconcert between the numbers of seized samples and pettis/cartons, allegedly recovered from the offending vehicle, i.e., asserted to be 41 (forty one), is not explicable from the material placed on record. Correspondingly, once it is the prosecution's own case that 24 (twenty four) pettis (cartons) of masaledar liquor in quarter bottles; 05 (five) other pettis (cartons) of different make; and 09 (nine) other petties CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 32 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.18 15:36:03 +0530 (cartons) of quarter bottles were also found lying in dickey (cumulatively making 38 pettis/cartons) and other 72 (seventy two) quarter bottles were found kept in one katta/gunny bag, the seizure of 41 (forty one) pettis/cartons is not understandable in the instant case. Needless to mention, quite ominously, nowhere under his deposition, the complainant/PW-2 avowed regarding the seizure of the illicit liquor or vehicle in question or of the arrest/search and seizure proceedings of the appellants.
23. Disconsolately, another noteworthy discrepancy observable from the material placed on record pertains to incongruity in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-5 as to the exact time/moment when the seizure memo was prepared by the IO/PW-5 in the instant case. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that PW-1 deposed under his examination-in-chief that it was only upon his return to the spot that the IO counted the quarter bottles in each pettis and took one sample bottles from each of the pettis. Correspondingly, as per PW-1, the case property was sealed with the seal of 'UA' and the sample bottles were also sealed with the seal of 'UA', after wrapping them in white cloth, only then. In fact, under his cross examination, PW-1 reiterated that the IO had prepared the documents, after the registration of FIR. However, as forestated, the said assertion of PW-1 is not only contradictory to the version of the incident put forth by PW-5/ASI Usman Ali under his deposition before the Ld. Trial Court, rather, also does not coincide with the contents of the rukka (Ex. PW5/A), wherein the factum of such seal and seizure, prior to dispatch of the tehrir/rukka to the police station for registration of FIR has already been mentioned. Needless to mention even the FIR (Ex. PW3/B) records that such search and seizure proceedings were conducted prior in time to PW-1's return to the spot with a copy of the said CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 33 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.18 15:36:07 +0530 FIR, belying the version put forth by the said witness/PW-1. Ergo, under such circumstances, the situation becomes even more bleak as the prosecution has failed to explain as to how the FIR number came to be mentioned/specified under the seizure memo (Ex. PW1/B) and Form No. M-29, both of which documents are stated by PW-5/IO to have come into existence, prior to the registration of the FIR. However, surprisingly, from an inspection of the said documents, it is noted the particulars of FIR had already specified thereupon and that too in running hand with same pen, which fact has remained unexplained on behalf of the prosecution. In fact, it is reiterated that no explanation is forthcoming from the prosecution as to how the FIR number surfaced on a document which was prepared prior to the registration of the FIR, casting a shadow of doubt on the prosecution's case. In this regard, reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Pawan Kumar v. Delhi Administration, 1987 SCC OnLine Del 290 , wherein the Hon'ble Court inter alia noted in a similar situation, as under;
"...Thereafter, the sketch plan of the knife was prepared in the presence of the witnesses. After that, the ruqa Ex. PW11/F was sent to the Police Station for the registration of the case on the basis of which the FIR, PW11/G was recorded. The F.I.R. is numbered as 36, a copy of which was sent to the I.O. after its registration. It comes to that the number of F.I.R. 36 came to the knowledge of the I.O. after a copy of it was delivered to him at the spot by a constable. In the normal circumstances, the F.I.R. No. should not find mention in the recovery memo or the sketch plan which had come into existence before the registration of the case. However, from the perusal of the recovery memo, I find that the FIR is mentioned whereas the sketch plan does not show the number of the FIR. It is not explained as to how and under what circumstances the recovery memo came to bear the F.I.R. No. which had already come into existence before the registration of the case. These are few of the circumstances which create a doubt, in my mind, CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 34 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.18 15:36:12 +0530 about the genuineness of the weapon of offence alleged to have been recovered from the accused."
(Emphasis supplied)
24. Relevantly, from a meticulous analysis of the material placed on record, this Court further finds credence in the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the appellants that even the place of seizure from the offending vehicle in the instant case, is not beyond a pale of doubt in the instant case. In this regard, this Court deems it pertinent to note that though, PW-1 affirmed under in his cross examination that no other illicit liquor was found from any other part of the vehicle, except the car's dickey, however, the said version of PW-1 contradicts the assertion of PW-2/Ct. Khushal under his cross examination. Appositely, PW-2 asserted under his cross examination that he found illicit liquor under both seats of front side in the vehicle in question/offending vehicle. However, even then, PW-2 asserted that he could not recollect as to how many pettis (cartons) of illicit liquor were noticed under the seat or as to what was the color and size of the pettis/cartons, allegedly containing illicit liquor. Needless to further mention that PW-2 contradicted his own version under his examination in chief and cross examination, in so far as PW-2 proclaimed that the illicit liquor was seized from the dickey of the vehicle in question. In fact, the manner in which the appellants are asserted to be apprehended, searched and demonstrated to be in possession if illicit liquor, in the considered opinion of this Court, not beyond shadow of doubt, considering that though, PW-2 asserted that he had noticed, nothing in the offending vehicle, which was against the law. However, PW-2 proclaimed that after he sat beside the appellants, he got suspicions. Despite the same, the reason for such suspicion is not forthcoming under deposition of PW-2. Needless CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 35 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.08.18 15:36:16 +0530 to mention that even the identification of vehicle in question is not beyond a shadow of doubt. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that, though, the prosecution witnesses identified the offending vehicle from its photograph Ex. P2, however, it is admitted case of the prosecution that the said photographs does not demonstrate the presence of any registration number on the vehicle seen/noted therein. In fact, PW-5 affirmed during his cross examination that the photograph Ex. P2 does not depict the presence of number plate on the vehicle, unmistakably, casting a sizeable dent in the version of prosecution witnesses.
25. Ergo, in light of the foregoing discrepancies, lacunae, and omissions on the part of the prosecution witnesses, in order to successful bring home guilt of the appellants in the instant case, it was incumbent on the prosecution to prove the recovery of the alleged illicit liquor from the appellants by means of the testimony of independent witnesses in the present case. However, the prosecution not miserably failed to adduce any independent witness, rather, even genuine endeavor on the part of the investigating authorities/police officials to join any independent witnesses in the recovery process appear to be grossly wanting. The same is despite the fact that it is not the prosecution's case that no public witnesses were present on the spot. On the contrary, PW-5 affirmed under his cross examination that public persons were present on the spot, however, as per PW-5, except Ct. Kushal, he did not confirm from any other witness regarding the apprehension of appellants. PW-5 further deposed under his cross- examination that he could not serve any notice to the public persons, who refused to join the investigation team. Obviously, the aforesaid circumstances demonstrate the absence of earnest attempts on the part of prosecution/investigating officer(s) to take CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 36 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.08.18 15:36:20 +0530 necessary steps at their end to fairly conduct the investigation in the instant case. Quite lucidly, such omissions on the part of the prosecution, when seen in conjunction with the aforenoted grave inadvertences, create reasonable doubt on the recovery of alleged illicit liquor from the appellants herein. Relevant in this regard to make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in Anoop Singh v. State, 1992 SCC OnLine Del 218, wherein the Hon'ble Court in an akin situation, observed as under;
"Apart from this material discrepancy, there is also discrepancy regarding the alleged efforts made by the police for joining the independent public witnesses. R.K. Chadha had been brought by the police from the police station while coming to the spot and it is stated by all the witnesses except the I.O. that only some of the passers by were requested to join the raiding party and they declined expressing their own difficulties and had gone away, whereas the I.O. came up with the story that even the shop-keepers, whose shops were open at the time of occurence, had been requested to join but they had declined The other witnesses have categorically stated that no shop-keeer was asked to join the raided party.
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 shop-keepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shop-keepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shop-keepers 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 I.P.C..."
(Emphasis supplied)
26. Correspondingly, in light of the foregoing, it is germane at this stage to deal with the contention of the Ld. Addl. PP for the State pertaining to the applicability of the provisions under Section 52 of the Delhi Excise Act in this case. In order to CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 37 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.18 15:36:25 +0530 appreciate the same, it would be apposite to reproduce the said provision as under;
"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) Where any animal, vessel, cart or other vehicle is used in the commission of an offence under this Act, and is liable to confiscation, the owner thereof shall be deemed to be guilty of such offence and such owner shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly, unless he satisfies the court that he had exercised due care in the prevention of the commission of such an offence."
(Emphasis supplied)
27. Quite intelligibility, for the presumption under Section 52(1) of the DE Act to be raised, it is obligatory for the prosecution to first establish the recovery of the articles envisaged under the said provision from the possession of the accused. It is only after the prosecution has proved the possession of the alleged articles by the accused, that the accused can be called upon to account for the same. However, in the instant case, for the reasons hereinunder observed, this Court cannot unambiguously reach a conclusion regarding the proof of possession of alleged illicit liquor from the appellants so as to raise the presumption under Section 52 of the Delhi Excise Act.
28. Comprehensibly, in light of the facts and circumstances noted hereinabove, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has not been able to unwaveringly and 'beyond reasonable doubt', bring home the charges against the appellants herein. Further, considering the gross lacunae and omissions in the case of the prosecution, as noted hereinunder, this CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 38 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.18 15:36:30 +0530 Court cannot, irrefutably reach a conclusion of guilt of the appellants herein. Even otherwise, it is noted herein that it is a settled law5 that in case where two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused and the other adversely against it, the view favoring the accused must be accepted.
29. Conclusively, in view of the above discussion, the present appeal deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. As such, in light of the foregoing, this Court reiterates that from the facts and circumstances placed on record, the appellants cannot be determined to be guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt' of any offence as charged and convicted/sentenced with by the Ld. Trial Court. Consequently, the judgment dated 19.01.2023 and order of sentence dated 09.02.2023, passed by Ld. MM-02, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in case bearing; 'State v. Jitender Antil, Etc., Cr. Case No. 296641/2016', arising out of FIR No. 887/2014, PS. Timarpur, convicting and sentencing the appellants, respectively, for the offence under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act read with Section 34 IPC are hereby set aside. The appellants are hereby admitted to bail on them, each furnishing of a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) along with one surety of the like amount (each), as required under section 437A Cr.P.C./Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS' for short). Further, as requested, the bail bond be furnished by the appellants, within a period of one week from the date of this judgment.
30. Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of this judgment/order.
31. Appeal file be consigned to record room after due 5 Raghunath v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 398, Dhan Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1980) 1 SCC 605 and State of U.P. v. Nandu Vishwakarma, (2009) 14 SCC 501.
CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 39 of 40 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.08.18 15:36:34 +0530
compliance. Copy of this judgment is given dasti to the appellants against acknowledgment.
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.08.18
15:36:41
+0530
Announced in the open Court (Abhishek Goyal)
on 18.08.2025. ASJ-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CA No.: 54/2023 Jitender Antil & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 40 of 40