Delhi District Court
State vs Rajni on 13 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT KARAN SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-08, WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT02-025484-2024
CIS No. 11448/24
State Vs. Rajni
FIR No. 984/21
PS. Ranhola
U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission of offence : 24.11.2021
2) The name of the complainant : Ct. Sandeep
3) The name & parentage of accused : Rajni W/o Baljeet,
R.o B-640, Camp no.4, Jwalapuri, Delhi.
4) Offence complained of : U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Acquittal
7) The date of such order : 13.11.2025
Date of Institution : 01.10.2024
Final Arguments heard on : 13.11.2025
Judgment reserved on : 13.11.2025
Judgment announced on : 13.11.2025
State Vs. Rajni FIR No. 984/21 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 1/10
JUDGMENT
1) The case of the prosecution against the accused is that on 24.11.2021 at about
17.50 hours near Camp no.4, Red Light Jwalapuri, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Ranhola, accused was found in possession of plastic Katta containing 100 quarter bottles brand "Santra Desi Sharab" (180 ml) for sale in Haryana only as detailed in seizure memo Mark 'X' without any permit or licence and accused committed an offence punishable U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act.
2) After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused. The copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr. P.C. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused under Section 33/38 Delhi Excise Act to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3) In support of its version, prosecution has examined four witnesses. Accused admitted as per section 294 Cr.PC, the factum as to the FIR no. 984/21 is Ex. A1, certificate U/s 65B of IE Act is Ex. A2, GD no. 93A is Ex. A3, Chemical Examiner Report is Ex. A4. The documents were admitted and the concerned witnesses were dropped.
4) After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded separately wherein accused claimed to be innocent and denied the allegations against them. Accused opted not to lead any DE.
5) I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld Counsel for accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
6) The testimonies of prosecution witnesses are being touched upon, in brief, as follows:-
6.1) PW-1 HC Sandeep deposed that on 24.11.2021, PW1 was posted at PS Ranhola as Head Contable. It is further stated by PW1 that on that day, PW1 was on for petrolling in the beat no. 03. It is further stated by PW1 that at about 05.50 PM, PW1 reached at camp number 04 near red light Delhi. It is further stated by PW1 that PW1 saw one lady who was carrying one plastic sack on her head and after seeing PW1 in uniform, accused turned back towards another side of Nangloi but State Vs. Rajni FIR No. 984/21 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 2/10 PW1 some how apprehanded her and upon inquiry she told her name Rajni. It is further stated by PW1 that upon checking the said plastic sack, PW1 found some illicit quarter bottles. It is further stated by PW1 that PW1 informed the duty officer and after some time IO/HC Jagdsih alongwith W/Ct. Kaushlaya reached the spot. It is further stated by PW1 that IO asked some public persons to join the investigation but to no avail. It is further stated by PW1 that IO checked the said plastic sack and found a total of 100 quarter bottles of the make of Santra Maseldar Desi Sarab for selling in Haryana only (180 ml). It is further stated by PW1 that IO took out one bottle as a sample and sealed it with the seal of JP. It is further stated by PW1 that IO kept back the remaining bottle in the said plastic sack and sealed it with the seal of JP and the seal was handed over to PW1. It is further stated by PW1 that IO filed up form M-29. It is further stated by PW1 that IO seized the case property vide memo exhibited Ex. PW-1/A. It is further stated by PW1 that IO recorded his statement which is now Ex. PW-1/B and endorsed it and prepared the tehrir and sent PW1 to the PS for getting the registration of FIR. It is further stated by PW1 that PW1 went to the PS and got the FIR registered. It is further stated by PW1 that after some time, PW1 came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and tehrir to IO. It is further stated by PW1 that IO prepared the site plan which is now Ex.
PW-1/C and recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide memo exhibited as Ex. PW-1/D. It is further stated by PW1 that IO give notice 41A Cr. PC to the accused persons. It is further stated by PW1 that thereafter, they brought the case property to the PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana of the PS. It is further stated by PW1 that IO recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr. PC. 6.2) PW-2 W/c Kaushalya deposed that on 24.11.2021, PW2 was posted at PS Paschim Vihar as Constable. It is further stated by PW2 that on that day, IO received DD no. 93A and PW2 along with IO went to spot and met Ct. sandeep there and accused Rajni along with illicit liquor were also there. It is further stated by PW2 that IO asked some public persons to join the investigation but to no avail. It is further stated by PW2 that IO checked the said plastic sack and found a total of 100 quarter bottles of the make of Santra Maseldar Desi Sarab for selling in State Vs. Rajni FIR No. 984/21 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 3/10 Haryana only (180 ml). It is further stated by PW2 that IO took out one bottle as a sample and sealed it with the seal of JP. It is further stated by PW2 that IO kept back the remaining bottle in the said plastic sack and sealed it with the seal of JP and the seal was handed over to PW2. It is further stated by PW2 that IO filed up form M-29. It is further stated by PW2 that IO seized the case property vide memo exhibited Ex. PW-1/A. It is further stated by PW2 that IO recorded statement of Ct. Sandeep and endorsed it and prepared the tehrir and sent him to the PS for getting the registration of FIR. It is further stated by PW2 that he went to the PS and got the FIR registered. It is further stated by PW2 that after some time, he came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and tehrir to IO. It is further stated by PW2 that IO prepared the site plan which is now Ex. PW-1/C and recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide memo exhibited as Ex. PW-1/D. It is further stated by PW2 that IO give notice 41A Cr. PC to the accused persons. It is further stated by PW2 that thereafter, they brought the case property to the PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana of the PS. It is further stated by PW2 that IO recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr. PC.
6.3) PW-3 HC Joginder deposed that PW3 was posted at PS Paschim Vihar West as HC. It is further stated by PW3 that the present matter has been marked to PW3 from the MHCR on 24.08.2022. It is further stated by PW3 that PW3 procured the result from excise lab and prepared the charge sheet and filed the same before the court.
6.3) PW-4 ASI Jagdish deposed that on 24.11.2021, PW4 was posted at PS Ranhola as ASI. It is further stated by PW4 that on that day, PW4 received one DD number 93A and PW4 alongwith W/Ct. Kaushyala went at the spot and met with HC Sandeep threre who handed over the custody of accused and illicit liquor to PW4 further course of investigation. It is further stated by PW4 that IO asked some public persons to join the investigation but to no avail. It is further stated by PW4 that PW4 checked the said plastic sack and found a total of 100 quarter bottles of the make of Santra Maseldar Desi Sarab for selling in Haryana only (180 ml). It is further stated by PW4 that IO took out one bottle as a sample and sealed it with the State Vs. Rajni FIR No. 984/21 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 4/10 seal of JP. It is further stated by PW4 that PW4 kept back the remaining bottle in the said plastic sack and sealed it with the seal of JP and the seal was handed over to PW4. It is further stated by PW4 that PW4 filed up form M-29 which is now Ex. PW-4/A. It is further stated by PW4 that PW4 seized the case property vide memo exhibited already Ex. PW-1/A. It is further stated by PW4 that PW4 recorded the statement of HC Sandeep which is already Ex. PW-1/B and endorsed it vide Ex. PW-4/B and prepared the tehrir and sent HC Sandeep to the PS for getting the registration of FIR. It is further stated by PW4 that he went to the PS and got the FIR registered. It is further stated by PW4 that after some time, he came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and tehrir to PW4. It is further stated by PW4 that PW4 prepared the site plan which is already Ex. PW-1/C and recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide memo exhibited as already Ex. PW-1/D. It is further stated by PW4 that PW4 give notice 41A Cr. PC to the accused person which is now Ex. PW-4/C. It is further stated by PW4 that thereafter, they brought the case property to the PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana of the PS. It is further stated by PW4 that PW4 recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr. PC.
7) It is the cardinal principle of Criminal Justice delivery system that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused person beyond reasonable doubts. No matter how weak the defence of accused is but, the golden rule of the Criminal Jurisprudence is that the case of the prosecution has to stand on its own leg.
8) Ld. counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the present case is a false one and is the example of high handedness of the police. He argued that the accused has been illegally framed in the present case and it is evident from the fact that the accused was allegedly apprehended from the public place and but there is no public witness to the proceedings. He argued that police officials conducted the entire proceedings and same is not trustworthy. Ld APP for the State argued that the public persons did not join the proceedings despite requests.
9) The manner in which the inquiry, seizure and search etc. was stated to be conducted on the spot at the time of arrest of the accused and alleged recovery of liquor makes the prosecution version highly doubtful. It is evident from the State Vs. Rajni FIR No. 984/21 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 5/10 testimony of PW-1 to PW-3 that accused was apprehended along with the alleged illicit liquor at public place but there is no public witness in the present case. Regarding the importance of joining independent witness during investigation in a case like the present one, reliance may be placed on the following case laws:-
In a case law reported as Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1999(2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
10) The names of the persons to whom the request was made to join the investigation has nowhere mentioned. No written notice has been placed on record which must be given to the public persons. Merely deposing that public person refused to join the investigation is of no avail. Considering the aforesaid observations made by the Higher Courts, the omissions/failure on the part of investigating agency to join independent public witnesses create reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and are fatal to the prosecution version which establishes the defence version that there is total false implication of the accused in the present case and that the recovery was planted upon the accused.
State Vs. Rajni FIR No. 984/21 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 6/10
11) It appears that no efforts was made to hand over the seal after use to independent person. I am conscious of precedent laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Safiullah v. State, 1993 (1) RCR (Criminal) 622, that:
"10. The seals after use were kept by the police officials themselves. Therefore the possibility of tampering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out. It was very essential for the prosecution to have established from stage to stage the fact that the sample was not tampered with. Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused."
Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court also held in Ramji Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 452, that "7. The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property."
12) No seal handing over memo is on record. The police official having the possession of the seal was posted in the same police station in the malkhana of which the case property was lying. There was ample opportunity for tempering with case property. Hence, considering the legal position, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.
13) Besides all this, in the present case, the seizure memo of illicit liquor Ex.PW1/A bears the number of FIR. As per the rukka and testimony of witnesses, the seizure memo was prepared prior to registration of FIR. If that be so then how seizure memo bears the FIR number. Now, I consider the observation made by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Giri Raj v. State, 83 (2000) DLT 201. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the case property or number of the said FIR was inserted in the document after its registration. In both the situations, it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a good deal of doubt about the recovery of the case property in the manner alleged by the prosecution. That being so, the benefit arising out of such a situation must necessarily go to the accused.
State Vs. Rajni FIR No. 984/21 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 7/10
14) Further the case property was sent for chemical examination on 27.12.2021 while the same was seized on 24.11.2021. The entire paper formalities were completed in 24.11.2021 only. When the entire codal formalities were completed on 24.11.2021 than the delay of around more than one month in sending the exhibits for chemical examination is beyond comprehension. Again the police official having the possession of the seal was posted in the same police station where the case property was lying. There was ample opportunity for tampering with the case property and benefit of this laxity on the part of investigating officer should go to the accused.
15) Being guided by above-said case laws, it can be said that the search, seizure and recovery made by the above said police officials was in complete violation of the well established principles of law and the same can be said to be illegal which create grave doubts on the prosecution's version of recovery of liquor from the possession of the accused from the spot and substantiates the defence version that the alleged recovery was planted upon the accused at the police station and that entire proceedings were recorded at the police station and not on the spot.
16) In the judgment titled as "S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P" reported as 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"...... In our view, the onus to proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution ..........................."1.
17) The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the State Vs. Rajni FIR No. 984/21 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 8/10 prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur reported as VIII(2007) SLT 454(SC).
18) In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my opinion accused has been able to raise a probable defence creating doubt about the existence or veracity of the prosecution version which renders the same untrustworthy. Accordingly, accused Rajni stands acquitted of charged offence. Case property be confiscated to the State. Same be destroyed. Personal bail bonds U/s 437 A Cr.PC furnished. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT KARAN KARAN SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.11.13 16:21:58
+0530
Announced in the open court (ANKIT KARAN SINGH)
on 13.11.2025 JMIC-08,West District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
State Vs. Rajni FIR No. 984/21 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 9/10