Delhi District Court
State vs Laxman Thakur on 29 February, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 05, ROOM NO. 513,
DWARKA, DELHI.
STATE
VERSUS
LAXMAN THAKUR
FIR No. 71/04
P.S.: Inderpuri
U/S: 61/1/14 Excise Act
1. Serial No. of the case : 02405R0283602010
2. Date of commission of offence : 05.04.2004
3. Name of the Complainant : Cont. Namo Narain,
P.S Inderpuri, New
Delhi.
4. Name of the accused, and
her parentage and residence : Laxman Thakur,
S/o Sh. Shripat Thakur,
R/o D163, JJ Colony,
Inderpuri, New Delhi.
6. Date when judgment : 29.02.2012
was reserved
7. Date when Judgment : 29.02.2012
was pronounced
8. Offence Complained of : Section 61/1/14 Excise Act
or proved
9. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
10. Final Judgment : Acquitted.
FIR No. 71/04
State Vs. Laxman Thakur Page 1/5
Brief Statement of reasons for the decision of the case
1. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.04.2004, at about 9.00 pm at D Block, main road, J.J Colony, Inderpuri, the accused was found in possession of 20 quarter bottles of Bonnie scot special malted whisky for sale in Haryana without any license or permit of Government of NCT of Delhi. Accordingly, FIR No. 71/04, PS Inderpuri was registered. The challan was filed on 21.03.2005.
2. Till 27.02.2012, prosecution has examined only two witnesses namely PW1 Retd SI Alam Singh and PW2 Ct Namo Narain to prove the case against the accused.
The matter is pending since year 2004. Ld APP for the State requested for granting one opportunity. In the present case, the matter is pending for the last eight years and sufficient opportunities were granted to the prosecution to conclude evidence. Hence, prosecution evidence is closed.
3. After the Prosecution evidence was closed the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C where he has denied his involvement in the case and stated that he has been falsely implicated. He did not lead any evidence in his defence. Thereafter final arguments were heard.
4. Ld APP for the State addressed useful and pertinent arguments. Ld. APP for the state has argued that the case property has been correctly identified by the witnesses including the recovery witnesses i.e PW1 and the case has been proved beyond doubt against the accused and prays for FIR No. 71/04 State Vs. Laxman Thakur Page 2/5 conviction of the accused.
5. On the other hand, accused submits that he was falsely implicated by the police and nothing was recovered from his possession.
6. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
6.1 PW1 is the complainant who stated that on 05.04.2004 while on patrolling, he apprehended the accused with one plastic gunny bag at D Block, JJ colony, Inderpuri and found quarter bottles of bony scott special malted whisky. Accordingly, on the information HC Rajender reached the spot and recorded his statement. He also stated that the IO checked and found 20 quarter bottles and took two quarter bottle as sample and seized the same. He also stated that he was present at the time of preparation of site plan, rukka, arrest memo and personal search memo of the accused.
PW1 correctly identified the accused as well as the case property. During his cross examination he denied the suggest that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused or he is deposing falsely. 6.2 PW2 proved the registration of FIR vide Ex. PW2/A.
7. In the present case, formal charge was not framed and after statement of the accused, a formal charge was framed against the accused for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused also stated that he has no objection if evidence lead till date is read.
8. In the testimonies on record till 27.02.2012, there are material contradictions as PW1 failed to state by which DD entry, he was patrolling in the area as mandated in Chapter 22 rule 49 of the Punjab Police FIR No. 71/04 State Vs. Laxman Thakur Page 3/5 Rules which provides that;
"Chapter 22 rule 49 Matters to be entered in Register no. II. The following matters shall amongst others, be entered:
(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty. This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal. Note:The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained.
8. ABSENCE OF INDEPENDENT WITNESS: PW1 failed to state whether he made any efforts to join any public witness while making search or when the IO came and seized the case property.
9. SEIZURE OF THE CASE PROPERTY: Moreover, only two quarter bottles were taken as sample out of 20 quarter bottles. It is not clear what was the liquid containing in the other quarter bottles and IO has not taken samples from other bottles which should be the standard procedure. Even the report of FSL is admissible U/s 294 Cr.P.C, but FSL report is regarding only two quarter bottles which were taken as sample.
10. In the light of above discussion and the evidence on record, I am of the satisfied that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Eventhough, the sample of the case FIR No. 71/04 State Vs. Laxman Thakur Page 4/5 property has tested positive for alcohol contents, the recovery and seizure of the same cannot be attributed from the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
11. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 61/1/14 of Punjab Excise Act with full honours. Bail bond cancelled. Surety Discharged.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT) COURT ON 29.02.2012 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE05 DWARKA COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. 71/04 State Vs. Laxman Thakur Page 5/5