Delhi District Court
State vs Baljeet Singh Etc on 1 March, 2025
THE COURT OF MS. SUKRITI SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04, WEST
ROOM NO. 268, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE
VERSUS
BALJEET SINGH & ORS CASE No. 76417/2016
FIR No. 162/2016
P.S- Khyala
U/S- 33/38/58/52 (2) Delhi
Excise Act, 2009
1. Date of commission of offence : 20.03.2016
2. Name of the Complainant : HC Suresh Kumar
3. Name of the accused,
and his parentage and residence : (i) Baljeet Singh S/o Late Sh.
Mahavir Singh, R/o F-13,
Shyam Vihar, Phase-I, Deen Pur,
Najafgarh, Delhi & (ii) Sushil
Maan S/o Late Sh. Om Prakash
Maan, R/o RZ 7A/8, Gali No.4,
Puran Nagar, Delhi &
4. Date when judgment : 30.01.2025
was reserved
5. Date when Judgment : 25.02.2025
was pronounced
6. Offence Complained of : Section 33/38/58/52 (2) of Delhi
or proved Excise Act 2009
7. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
FIR No. 162/16 State Vs Baljeet Singh etc U/s 33/38/58/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 1
8. Final Judgment : Acquitted
1. BRIEF FACTUAL POSITION:-
1.1 The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 20.03.2016, at
about 02:35 PM near Mandir, K-Block, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS - Khyala, accused Baljeet Singh was having in his possession illicit liquor i.e. 25 gatta petties out of which 20 gatta petties were of white colour containing 48 quarter bottles each of 'Impact Grain Whisky for sale in Haryana only' and 5 gatta petties were of khakhi colour, containing 50 quarter bottles each of 'Asli Santra Masaledar Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only' in the vehicle bearing registration no.DL-3CAY-1364 without any license, permit or pass and in contravention of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009. The vehicle in question was found registered in the name of accused Sushil Mann. Case property was seized and the present case was registered, starting the investigation in the present matter.
1.2. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed on 05.12.2016 indicting the accused Baljeet Singh and Sushil Maan for commission of the offence U/s 33/38/58/52(2) of Delhi Excise Act, 2009. Ld. Predecessor took cognizance on 05.12.2016 and issued summons on the same day. Copy of the chargesheet in compliance with Section 207 CrPC was supplied to accused Baljeet Singh on 23.03.2017 and accused Sushil Maan on 21.11.2017.
1.3. Charge for the offence U/s 33/38/58/52(2) of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 was framed against the accused persons on 06.02.2019 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 162/16 State Vs Baljeet Singh etc U/s 33/38/58/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 2
2. MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
2.1 The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined 05 witnesses in total. PW Ct. Raj Kumar was dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses vide order dated 25.11.2024 as he had expired. Separate statement of the accused persons u/s 294 CrPC was also recorded on 27.06.2019 and copy of FIR No.162/16 with certificate u/s 65 B of IEA, DD No.26 B dated 20.03.2016, DD no.36 A dated 20.03.2016, entry with RC No.83/21/16, entry with register no.19 and Excise report dated 19.04.2016 were exhibited. The details of the witnesses examined along with documents exhibited thereby are given as under:
S. Name of Documents Dates of Dates of
No. Prosecution Exhibited in examination cross-
witnesses Evidence. -in-chief. examination
PW-1 Sh. (i) Record 09.08.2019 09.08.2019
Manmohan pertaining to
vehicle
no.DL3CAY-13
64 - Ex.PW1/A
PW-2 HC Noor (I) Site plan - 22.07.2022 22.11.2022
Singh Ex.PW2/A
(ii) notice
served upon the
registered owner
of vehicle - Ex
PW2/B
(iii) Arrest
memo of
accused Baljeet
Singh -
Ex.PW2/C
FIR No. 162/16 State Vs Baljeet Singh etc U/s 33/38/58/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 3
(iv) Personal
search memo of
accused baljeet
Singh -
Ex.PW2/D
(v) Arrest memo
of accused
Sushil -
Ex.PW2/E
PW-3 HC Suresh (I) Form M-29 22.11.2022 19.10.2023
Kumar - Ex.PW3/A &
(ii) Seal 08.01.2024
handing over
memo -
Ex.PW3/B
(iii) seizure
memo of liquor
- Ex.PW3/C
(iv) Seizure
memo of
offending car -
Ex.PW3/D
(v) Rukka/
tehrir -
Ex.PW3/E
(vi)
Confiscation
order alongwith
destruction
order with one
photograph -
Mark P1 (colly)
(vii) Case
FIR No. 162/16 State Vs Baljeet Singh etc U/s 33/38/58/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 4 property -
Ex.A1-A2.
(viii) two coloured photographs of offending vehicle- Ex.A3 (colly) PW-4 ASI (I) Disclosure 19.10.2023 19.10.2023 Parasnath statement of accused Sushil -
Ex.PW4/A
PW-5 ASI Paul (I) Disclosure 30.07.2024 30.07.2024
Soren statement of
Baljeet Singh -
Ex.PW5/A
2.2 PW-1 was SI Manmohan who stated that he had brought the record
pertaining to vehicle bearing registration no. DL-3CAY-1364 which is registered in the name of Sushil Maan S/o Sh. Om Parkash. The previous owner of the said vehicle was Sh. R.N. Chakravarty and the same was transferred in the name of present owner namely Sh. Sushil Maan on 11.12.2012. The defence chose not to cross examine the said witness.
2.3 PW-2 i.e. HC Noor Singh stated that on 20.03.2016 he was posted at PS Khyala as Head Constable and on that day, the investigation of the present case was entrusted to him after the registration of FIR. After the registration of FIR, he alongwith Ct. Raj Kumar went to the place of recovery i.e. K-Block, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi. At the spot, HC Suresh (first IO) was present alongwith Ct. Mahesh. At the spot, one vehicle i.e. car bearing registration no. DL-3CAY-1364 was FIR No. 162/16 State Vs Baljeet Singh etc U/s 33/38/58/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 5 present in the custody of HC Suresh and the recovered liquor was also in his possession. At the spot, PW-2 prepared the site plan at the instance of HC Suresh and recorded the statement of HC Suresh u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, HC Suresh was made free from further proceedings. Further, the accused of the case was searched but there was no clue and in continuation of proceedings, PW-2 alongwith other staff members returned to the police station and deposited the case property with MHC(M). On 20.04.2016, the registered owner of the vehicle came to the police station on the notice which was served upon him. The registered owner, namely, Sushil Mann was duly identified by the witness. The said accused stated during investigation that he would produce the co-accused. Thereafter, the accused Baljeet Singh was produced on 25.04.2016 and was arrested and personally searched. Accused Baljeet Singh was also correctly identified by the witness. During the investigation of the present case, the accused Sushil Maan obtained anticipatory bail from the Court and accordingly, he joined the investigation, was formally arrested and personally searched. During investigation, the samples taken by HC Suresh were sent to the Excise Lab. The registered owner's details qua the abovementioned vehicle was collected from the concerned authority and as per their report, accused Sushil Maan was the registered owner. After completion of investigation and receiving the excise result, PW-2 filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsels for both the accused persons, relevant parts of which have been reproduced in the reasoning section.
2.4 PW-3 was HC Suresh Kumar who stated that on 20.03.2016, he was posted at PS Khyala as HC. On that day, he alongwith Ct. Raj Kumar and Ct. Mahesh left the PS for patrolling duty and during the patrolling duty at about 02.35 PM, they FIR No. 162/16 State Vs Baljeet Singh etc U/s 33/38/58/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 6 were present at B-1 Block near Roshan Di Hatti Raghubir Nagar when one car bearing registration no.DL-3CAY-1364 came from the side of road no.29 and on seeing the police party, the car was turned towards K-Block and thereupon, the police party got suspicious. All the staff members proceeded towards the said car and when they reached at K-Block, the driver of the car was turning it as the street was blocked ahead and taking the benefit of congested street, he fled away from the spot. The said driver was chased by the team members but he succeed to flee away from the spot. All the team members reached the point where the car was stationed and it was found that the key was inserted in the starting point and the glass of driver side window panel was broken. The backside glass of the said car was also found broken and on checking, it was found that there was no backside seat in the said car and certain cartons were lying inside the car at backside. The said cartons were taken out from the said car and the cartons were total 25 in number. All the cartons were opened and each each found containing illlicit liquor. Out of the same, 20 cartons of white colour were found containing 48 quarter bottles each bearing mark of 'Impact Grain Whisky for sale in Haryanan only' and the remaining 5 cartons of brown colour were found containing 50 quarter bottles each bearing mark of 'Asli Santra Masaledar Sharab for sale in Haryana only'. Public persons were asked to join the recovery proceedings but none agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. Due to paucity of time, notice could not be served upon the public persons who refused to join the recovery proceedings. Thereafter, one quarter bottle from each carton i.e. 25 quarter bottles in total were taken out as sample and all moored from bottleneck with white cloth and sealed with the seal of 'SKT'. The remaining quarter bottles were put in the same cartons and all were wrapped with white cloth and sealed FIR No. 162/16 State Vs Baljeet Singh etc U/s 33/38/58/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 7 with the seal of 'SKT'. The samples were given serial no.1A to 25A and the cartons were given serial no.1-25. Form M-29 was filled at the spot. All the quarter bottles taken out as samples were put in the sack and the same was moored with white cloth and sealed with the seal of 'SKT.' Seal after use was handed over to Ct. Raj Kumar. The recovered liquor as well as the car was taken into possession vide separate seizure memos. Further, the rukka/ tehrir was prepared and handed over to Ct. Raj Kumar for the registration of FIR whereupon he went to the police station and got the FIR registered. He then returned to the spot with HC Noor Singh, to whom further investigation was entrusted. PW-3 handed over to him the above-mentioned documents and the recovered case property. HC Noor Singh prepared the site plan presence of PW-3 and recorded his statement u /s 161 CrPC and made him free from the further proceedings. Accused Baljeet Singh who fled away from the spot was seen by PW-3 when he was fleeing and correctly identified in the court. The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsels for both the accused persons, relevant parts of which have been reproduced in the reasoning section.
2.5 PW-4 was ASI Parasnath who stated that on 08.05.2016 he was posted at PS Khyala as constable and was on duty. On that day, he joined the investigation in the present case alongwith IO/ HC Noor Singh. IO HC Noor Singh had called one person namely Sushil Maan to the police station. He was correctly identified by the witness. This person was the ownr of the vehicle bearing registration No. DL3CAY1364 and the same was involved in the present case. On the basis of this, IO/ HC Noor Singh recorded the disclosure statement of accused Sushil Mann who was then arrested. IO recorded statement of PW-4. The witness was duly cross FIR No. 162/16 State Vs Baljeet Singh etc U/s 33/38/58/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 8 examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Sushil Maan, relevant parts of which have been reproduced in the reasoning section. Opportunity for cross examination was not availed by accused Baljeet Siingh.
2.6 PW-5 i.e. ASI Paul Soren stated that on 25/04/2016, he was posted at PS Khyala as Constable. On that day, accused Baljeet had visited the police station after the IO served him notice u/s 133 MV Act. Then, IO/HC Noor Singh formally arrested him, personally searched him and recorded the disclosure statement of the accused. IO recorded statement of PW-5 u/s 161 CrPC. Then, PW-5 was discharged from the present case. The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsels for both the accused persons, relevant parts of which have been reproduced in the reasoning section.
3. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C :
3.1 After the prosecution evidence was closed, the entire incriminating evidence was put to accused persons Baljeet Singh and Sushil Maan in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. and statements of accused persons were recorded separately on 25.11.2024 wherein they denied the allegations and tendered explanation that they had been falsely implicated. They opted not to lead any DE in their defence.
4. ARGUMENTS:
4.1 Ld. APP for the State has argued that the accused Sushil Maan was the registered owner of the car in which illicit liquor was transported by accused Baljeet Singh and that the former had duly produced the latter before the court. On the other FIR No. 162/16 State Vs Baljeet Singh etc U/s 33/38/58/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 9 hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused Sushil Maan argued that the accused had lent the vehicle for personal use and was neither present near the car nor found in the possession of any liquor. He further argued that no CCTV footage had been furnished to show that the car had been recovered from the alleged spot. Ld. Counsel for the accused Baljeet Singh submitted that the recovery itself was not duly proved as no videography, photography, examination of any public witness was done. He submitted that the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted.
5. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS ON MERITS:
5.1 In the present case, the accused persons have been charged with the offence U/s 33/38/58/52(2) of Delhi Excise Act, for being found in possession of illicit liquor without any licence, permit or pass, and in contravention of the notification issued by the Delhi Government and recovery of liquor from the abovestated vehicle.
5.2 Section 33 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 states that:
whoever, in contravention of provisions 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 works any manufactory or warehouse;
(c) bottles any liquor for 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 toddy or tari;
(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 packed or any apparatus FIR No. 162/16 State Vs Baljeet Singh etc U/s 33/38/58/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 10 or implement or machine for the purpose of packing 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 with fine, which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees which may extend to one lakh rupees.
5.3 Section 38 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 states that:
Whoever has in his possession any liquor knowing the same to have been unlawfully imported, transported or manufactured or knowing the prescribed duty not to have been paid thereon, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.
5.4 Section 52 (2) of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 states that:
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.
5.5 Section 58 in The Delhi Excise Act, 2009 states that:
Whenever an offence has been committed, which is punishable under this Act, following things shall be liable to confiscation, namely-(a)any intoxicant, FIR No. 162/16 State Vs Baljeet Singh etc U/s 33/38/58/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 11 material, still, utensil, implement, apparatus in respect of or by means of which such offence has been committed;(b)any intoxicant unlawfully imported, transported, manufactured, sold or brought along with or in addition to, any intoxicant, liable to confiscation under clause (a);(c)any receptacle, package, or covering in which anything liable to confiscation under clause (a) or clause (b), is found, and the other contents, if any, of such receptacle, package, or covering;(d)any animal, vehicle, vessel, or other conveyance used for carrying the same. 5.6 This court now proceeds to analyse the evidence adduced in the present case.
Firstly it is noted that all the recovery witnesses have admitted that no public witnesses were joined in the present enquiry. Regarding the non joining of public witnesses, it is important to revisit the provisions as follows:
5.7 Section 100(4) Cr.P.C states that, "before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate, or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do"....
FIR No. 162/16 State Vs Baljeet Singh etc U/s 33/38/58/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 12 5.8 Section 37 Cr.P.C. states that, "every person is bound to assist a Magistrate or police officer reasonably demanding his aid-
(a) in the taking or preventing the escape of any other person whom such Magistrate or police Officer is authorized to arrest ; or
(b) in the prevention of suppression of a breach of the peace; or
(c) in the prevention of any injury attempted to be committed to any railway, canal, telegraph or public property".
5.9 Section 42 Cr.P.C. states that, "when any person who, in the presence of the police officer, has committed or has been accused of committing a non-cognizable offence refuses, on demand of such officer, to give his name and residence, or gives a name or residence which such officer has reason to believe to be false, he may be arrested by such officer in order that his name or residence may be ascertained.
(2) When the true name and residence of such persons have been ascertained, he shall be released on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, to appear before a Magistrate, if so required;
FIR No. 162/16 State Vs Baljeet Singh etc U/s 33/38/58/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 13 Provided that, if such person is not resident in India, the bond shall be secured by a surety or sureties resident in India.
(3) Should the true name and residence of such person not be ascertained within twenty-four hours from the time of arrest, or should he fail to execute the bond, or, if so required, to furnish sufficient sureties, he shall forthwith be forwarded to the nearest Magistrate having jurisdiction".
5.10 Section 187 IPC states that, " whoever, being bound by law to render or furnish assistance to any public servant in the execution of his public duty, intentionally omits to give such assistance, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both;
and if such assistance be demanded of him by a public servant legally competent to make such demand for the purpose of executing any process lawfully issued by a Court of Justice, or of preventing the commission of an offence, or of suppressing a riot, or affray, or of apprehending a person charged with or guilty of an offence, or of FIR No. 162/16 State Vs Baljeet Singh etc U/s 33/38/58/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 14 having escaped from lawful custody, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both".
5.11 As noted above, it is not the case of the prosecution, in the course of arguments, that no public witnesses were available. All the recovery witnesses have stated that public persons had been asked to join the investigation but none joined. Moreover, if such witnesses were present, IO has failed to explain as to why their names and residence details were not recorded, or why was any notice not issued to them, as per the aforesaid discussed provisions. When a statutory provision mandates that an independent witness has to be joined in the investigation, the IO is duty bound to comply with the same. In the very least, he should make sincere efforts in this regard. If someone refuses to join the investigation without any justifiable reason, proper notice u/s 187 IPC should be given to him. Merely stating that the public person refused to join the investigation is not sufficient to serve the purpose of the prosecuting agency, more so, when the IO failed to even record the names and details of such person, and failed to take any required steps in terms of Section 37 and 42 of Cr.P.C.
5.12 In the case of Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under;
" 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 FIR No. 162/16 State Vs Baljeet Singh etc U/s 33/38/58/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 15 witnesses".
5.13 In the present case such sincere efforts have not been shown and there is a vital omission on part of the prosecution to include important eye witnesses from the admittedly congested road junction from where recovery allegedly took place. Pertinently, PW-2 also admitted in his cross examination dated 22.11.2022 that accused Sushil Maan had sold the vehicle in question to person namely Rajpal in the year 2014, i.e. before the incident. This person was also produced before the police station for recording of his statement but the witness was thrown out of the police station, as per cross-examination dated 22.11.2022. PW-2 thereafter volunteered that no such thing had happened. No reason is given why such person was not added as a witness, if not as a suspect in the present matter.
5.14 There are further discrepancies inter se among the testimonies given by the prosecution witness examined. For instance PW-2 stated in his cross examination that it was the front windscreen of the car which was broken and also failed to state whether the key of the car was at the starting point, while PW-3 stated that key was inserted in the starting point and the glass of driver side window panel as well as backside glass were broken. However in his cross examination, PW-3 stated that the front windscreen of the car was cracked but not fully opened. He then accepted the suggestion that the rear windscreen was broken in a manner that would allow a person to enter the car. PW-2 denied the same. Thus the suggestion of the defence that the windows of the car were broken in such a manner that the contraband could have been planted by any person within it, cannot be entirely dismissed. Moreover, PW-2 stated in his cross examination on 22.07.2022 that the recovered liquor was taken to the police station in the said vehicle but in his cross examination dated 22.11.2022 he stated that he had made no attempt to start the car. These two FIR No. 162/16 State Vs Baljeet Singh etc U/s 33/38/58/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 16 statements were never reconciled. Further, PW-3 contradicted himself in his cross examination conducted on 08.01.2024 when he stated that the spot was not a crowded place. It was previously stated that the accused Baljeet Singh had managed to escape due to congestion in the area.
5.15 Regarding the seal on the property, PW-3 has stated that the seal was handed over to PW Ct. Raj Kumar, who could not be examined as he had expired before his testimony could be recorded. It is also conceded that the seal was not handed over to any independent witnesses, and remained with the police officials of the same police station. There is no mention of when Ct. Raj Kumar had handed over the seal back, or to whom. Thus, the possibility of the case property being tampered with is extremely strong, and cannot be ignored and therefore manipulation of the said sample or seized property can not be ruled out.
5. 16 Additionally, seizure memo is stated to have been made prior to registration of FIR by all the witnesses. PW-3 also admitted in his cross examination that he had prepared the seizure memo first and there is no mention of any addition to this document after preparing it. However, both the seizure memos, i.e. for the liquor as well as the vehicle, bear complete particulars of the present case FIR. This raises doubt on the proceedings as the implication is that either the FIR was registered prior in time or the documents in question were prepared later on at the police station. In both cases, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused person.
5.17 The pre-requisite to hold any person guilty under Section 52 (2) of the Excise Act is that the accused must be the owner of the vehicle which has been used in the commission of the offence under Delhi Excise Act. However, in the present case FIR No. 162/16 State Vs Baljeet Singh etc U/s 33/38/58/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 17 sufficient doubt has been created over the alleged recovery of the liquor from the spot and vehicle in question. Witnesses have already admitted that no videography or photography of the car was done at the spot and it was admitted that boxes allegedly containing alcohol could not be seen in the photographs Ex.A3. As noted above, defence has also suggested the possibility the car was found abandoned with broken glasses and the illicit alcohol was implanted afterwards therein to implicate the accused persons. Since there is no cogent material on record to sufficiently show the culpability of accused Baljeet Singh for offence u/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act, no culpability can be cast upon accused Sushil Maan for ownership of the vehicle from which the said liquor was allegedly recovered.
5.18 In view of the aforesaid discussion, the recovery as alleged by the prosecution i.e. illicit liquor from the possession of the accused namely Jeetu cannot be stated to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further, in regards to the allegations upon the co-accused namely Raju who has been charged, u/s 52 (2) of Delhi Excise Act, it was imperative for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt upon the main accused Jeetu and it was only then that the liability of committing the offence could be fastened upon the co-accused Raju. Since, the alleged recovery from the main accused Jeetu itself could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, hence the question of fastening the liability of the co-accused Raju u/s 52(2) of Delhi Excise Act does not arise.
5.19 The cardinal principal of law cannot be forgotten that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The standard of proof in criminal cases is not preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond all reasonable doubts. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that culpability cannot be established on FIR No. 162/16 State Vs Baljeet Singh etc U/s 33/38/58/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 18 surmises and conjectures but it should rest on cogent, reliable and clinching evidence, dispelling every doubt and bulwarking the fact that in all possibility, the offence must have been committed by the accused. In the present case it is apparent, that the case of the prosecution suffers from several glaring loopholes. Under the circumstances, it would not be proper to convict the accused persons Jeetu and Raju merely on the basis of inconsistent testimonies of the police officials. Hence, accused persons namely Jeetu S/o Sh. Bhagwan Das, R/o H.No. 17A, Gali No.10, Vikas Vihar, Vikas Nagar, Delhi & Raju S/o Sh. Lala Prasad, R/o H.NO. WZ (f) 99 Shiva Enclave Vikas Nagar, Delhi, are acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 33/52 (2) of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009, on the basis of benefit of doubt.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signedANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN SUKRITI by SUKRITI
SINGH
SINGH Date:
COURT ON 25.02.2025
2025.03.01
16:18:05 +0530
(SUKRITI SINGH)
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-04/WEST/
TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI
Containing 19 pages, all signed by the presiding officer SUKRITI Digitally signed by SUKRITI SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.01 16:18:11 +0530 (SUKRITI SINGH) JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04/WEST/ TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI FIR No. 162/16 State Vs Baljeet Singh etc U/s 33/38/58/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 19