Delhi District Court
Ccc Roop Chand vs . State Of Haryana That When Some on 18 October, 2012
1 FIR NO:32/2003
State V. Rajni
IN THE COURT OF Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR NO: 32/2003
PS: Dabri
U/s 61/1/14 Punjab Excise Act.
State V. Rajni
Date of institution of the case : 22.10.2003
Date on which Judgment was reserved : Not Reserved
JUDGMENT
a) S. No. of the case : 538/3
b) Date of commission of offence :15/01/2003
c) Name of the Complainant :HC Balwan Singh
No.338/SW, PS:Dabri,
New Delhi.
d) Name of accused and address :Rajni W/o Sh. Jaswant
R/o F-44, Gali No.8,
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
2 FIR NO:32/2003
State V. Rajni
g) Final order : Acquitted
h) Date of such order : 18.10.2012
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION :-
1. The present case was registered against the accused Rajni on the allegations that on 15.01.2003 at about 5:40 pm at H.NO.F-44, Gali No.81, Mahavir Enclave Part-III, New Delhi, she was apprehended by the police party while she was selling the illicit liquor and sold two quarter bottles of the illicit liquor to the decoy customer Ct. Himmat Singh and was found having in possession of 33 quarter bottles of illicit liquor without any permit or licence. At the complaint of HC Balwan Singh, 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 3 FIR NO:32/2003 State V. Rajni to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution has filed list of Nine witnesses and examined the Three witnesses.
4. PW-1 Ct. Tej Singh deposed that on 15.01.2003 he along with Ct. Himmat and HC Balwan while on patrolling duty received a secret information regarding selling of illicit liquor by accused. Thereafter, Ct. Himmat was given Rs.50/- and sent to the accused as a decoy customer who purchased two quarter bottles from accused and at his signal they apprehended the accused. One plastic katta containing 31 quarter bottles was recovered from accused. Two quarter bottles were taken as sample. Case property was sealed with the seal of BSM and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/A. IO prepared tehrir and got the case registered through him. Further investigation was carried out by HC Ashok. Accused was arrested and her personal search was conducted vide memo's Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D. 4 FIR NO:32/2003 State V. Rajni
5. PW-2 HC Raj Pal Singh stated that on 15.01.2003 HC Balwan Singh deposited 4 sealed pullandas having seal of BSM at the malkhna. And on 14.09.2003 he sent sample of present case to Excise lab. Through Ct. Dayanand. Relevant entry in register No.19 in this regard is Ex.PW2/A.
6. PW-3 HC Dayanand stated that he took the sample from Malkhana and deposited the same at Excise Lab ITO vide RC No. 380/21.
7. 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.
8. I have heard the arguments of both the parties. Ld. APP 5 FIR NO:32/2003 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.
9. 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.
10. In the present case no public witness was joined in the investigation by the IO. However, it is admitted by the PW-1 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 investigation. 6 FIR NO:32/2003
State V. Rajni 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.
11. The initial investigation of the case is conducted by HC Balwan Singh who is also complainant of the case. As per the principles of natural justice, investigation by the complainant himself is not fair.
12. The case property Ex.P-1 when produced before the court, then it was in unsealed condition, some of the quarter bottles were also empty. None of the witness stated that to whom the seal was handed over after its use. Therefore, proper sealing and custody of case property becomes doubtful. HC Ashok Kumar 7 FIR NO:32/2003 State V. Rajni who conducted the further investigation of the case is not examined.
13. Hence, in view of above discussion, case of the 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:32/2003, 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 18th day of October' 2012 (Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) This judgment contains 7 pages METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE which bears my signatures at DWARKA COURTS/DELHI each page.
8 FIR NO:32/2003
State V. Rajni FIR NO: 32/2003 PS: Dabri U/s 61/1/14 Punjab Excise Act.
State V. Rajni
18.10.2012
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused is present on bail with counsel Sh. Sameer
Goel.
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