Delhi District Court
Court In 1990 Ccc Roop Chand vs . State Of Haryana on 2 April, 2013
FIR NO:678/1999
State V. Rajni
IN THE COURT OF Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR NO: 678/1999
PS: Dabri
U/s 61/1/14 Punjab Excise Act.
State V. Rajni
Date of institution of the case : 14.09.2000
Date on which Judgment was reserved : Not Reserved
JUDGMENT
a) S. No. of the case : 445/3
b) Date of commission of offence :18/09/1999
c) Name of the Complainant :SI Ravi Kumar
PS:Dabri, New Delhi.
d) Name of accused and address :Rajni
W/o Sh.Jaswant @ Gunga
R/o F-44, Gali No.81,
Mahavir Enclave, Part-III,
New Delhi.
e) Offence complained of :U/s 61/1/14 Punjab
Excise Act.
f) Plea of accused :Pleaded not guilty
FIR NO:678/1999
State V. Rajni
g) Final order : Acquitted
h) Date of such order : 02.04.2013
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION :-
1. The present case was registered against the accused Rajni on the allegations that on 18.09.1999 at about 9:30 am at Gali No.81, Mahavir Enclave Part-III, New Delhi, she was apprehended by the police party while she was having in possession of total 290 pouches and 58 quarter bottles of illicit liquor without any permit or licence. At the complaint of SI Ravi Kumar, the present case was registered. Accused was charge sheeted accordingly U/s 61/1/14 Punjab Excise Act.
2. Accused was summoned and charge was framed against accused Rajni for the offence u/s 61 Punjab Excise Act to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR NO:678/1999 State V. Rajni
3. Prosecution has filed list of Seven witnesses and examined the Five witnesses.
4. PW-1 ASI Darshan Lal recorded the FIR of the present case copy of which is Ex.PW1/A and his endorsement on the rukka in this regard is Ex.PW1/B.
5. PW-2 HC Niranjan Lal deposited the sample bottle at Excise Office ITO on 07.12.1999 for chemical analysis.
6. PW-3 Insp. Naresh Malik stated that on 18.09.1999 he was entrusted with the investigation of this case. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Manoj and L/Ct. Shakuntla reached the spot, where he met SI Ravi Kumar and accused Rajini. SI Ravi Kumar handed over the accused, case property i.e. three sealed plastic katta sealed with seal of 'RKT' marked as Sl. No. 1 to 3 and one sealed sample in plastic dabba and two quarter bottles sealed, seizure memo and Form M-29 to him. He prepared the site plan at the instance of SI FIR NO:678/1999 State V. Rajni Ravi Kumar which is EX.PW3/A. He arrested the accused and took her personal search through L/Ct. Shakuntla vide memos EX.PW3/B & EX.PW3/C respectively. He recorded the statement of the witnesses. Case property was deposited at malkhana and completed the challan.
7. PW-4 SI Ravi Kumar and PW-5 Ct. Manoj Kumar also deposed the identical version as stated by PW-3. PW-5 took the rukka from the spot and got the case registered and he also tendered Excise Report Ex.PW5/A.
8. No other witness was examined by the prosecution. Hence, PE closed. Statement of accused recorded u/s 281 Cr.P.C in which she denied all the allegations made against her and further submitted that she does not want to lead defence evidence. Case was fixed for final arguments.
9. I have heard the arguments of both the parties. Ld. APP FIR NO:678/1999 State V. Rajni for the State has argued that as the accused was caught red handed while in possession of illicit liquor and therefore she deserves maximum punishment. Ld. Counsel for the accused stated that prosecution cannot prove any ingredients of the offence against accused. Accused is falsely implicated in the present case and is liable to be acquitted. I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record.
10. As per the principles of Criminal law it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. The statements of the witnesses must be uncontradictory and corroborative in nature to become reliable and chain of evidence must be complete.
11. In the present case no public witness was joined in the investigation by the IO. However, it is admitted by the prosecution witnesses that public persons were available at the spot. It is also admitted that no notice was served upon them by the IO to join the FIR NO:678/1999 State V. Rajni investigation. It was held by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1990 CCC ROOP CHAND vs. STATE OF HARYANA that when some witness from the public were available then the explanation furnished by the prosecution that they refused to join the investigation, the same is wholly unsatisfactory, particularly when IO did not note down their names and addresses and did not take any action against them.
12. The initial investigation of the case is conducted by SI Ravi Kumar who is also complainant of the case. As per the principles of natural justice, investigation by the complainant himself is not fair.
13. The case property not produced before the court and it is reported by the MHC(M) that case property of the present case had been burnt in a fire accident on 04.04.2003 and copy of FIR in this regard also filed by him Ex.P1. As per PW-2, he deposited one sample bottle at Excise office whereas as per chemical report FIR NO:678/1999 State V. Rajni Ex.PW5/A one sealed plastic dibba was deposited containing 10 pouches and two quarter bottles. On the other hand PW-4 and PW-5 stated in their chief examination that only 10 pouches were kept in the plastic dibba and remaining case property along with other samples were separately sealed. The MHC(M) concerned to whom the case property was deposited at malkhana is not examined. Therefore, proper sealing and custody of case property becomes doubtful.
14. PW-4 stated in his cross examination that Ct. Manoj went to PS with rukka on his (PW-4's) scooter wheras PW-5 Ct. Manoj stated that he went to PS with rukka on his own motorcycle. As per PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5, site plan was prepared at the instance of PW-4 SI Ravi Kumar but perusal of site plan Ex.PW3/A reveals that there is no name or signature of SI Ravi Kumar as a witness showing his presence.
15. Hence, in view of above discussion, case of the FIR NO:678/1999 State V. Rajni prosecution becomes doubtful. The alleged offence against the accused is not established beyond reasonable doubt, benefit of which goes to accused as per Principles of Criminal Law. Therefore, accused Rajni W/o Sh. Jaswant is acquitted in case FIR No:678/1999, P.S: Dabri. Bail bond of the accused shall remain in force for the period of six month starting from today in accordance with section 437A Cr.P.C as no fresh bail bond furnished by the accused. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on this 02nd day of April' 2013 (Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) This judgment contains 8 pages METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE which bears my signatures at DWARKA COURTS/DELHI each page.
FIR NO:678/1999 State V. Rajni FIR NO: 678/1999 PS: Dabri U/s 61/1/14 Punjab Excise Act.
State V. Rajni 02.04.2013 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused is present on bail with counsel Sh. Sameer Goel.
PW-5 examined and discharged.
No other PW is present. Matter pertains to year 1999. Sufficient opportunities already granted to prosecution to conclude the evidence. No further opportunity is justified. Hence, PE closed.
Statement of accused recorded u/s 281 Cr.PC. Accused not opted to lead evidence in her defence.
Final arguments heard today.
Vide separate judgment pronounced and dictated in the open court, accused Rajni is acquitted for the offence U/s 61/1/14 Punjab Excise Act. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DWARKA COURTS/DELHI