Delhi District Court
State vs Shahnaz @ Munaj on 29 April, 2025
THE COURT OF MS. SUKRITI SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04, WEST
ROOM NO. 268, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE
VERSUS
SHAHNAZ @ MUNAJ
CASE No. 5784/2018
FIR No. 383/2017
P.S. Khyala
U/S- 33/38 Delhi Excise Act,
2009
1. Date of commission of offence : 28.12.2017
2. Name of the Complainant : HC Lokender Kumar
3. Name of the accused,
and his parentage and residence: Shahnaz @ Munaj W/o Lt.
Sh. Mohd. Yamin, R/o
H.No.RG-298, Tanki Wali
Jhuggi, Raghubir Nagar,
Khyala, Delhi
4. Date when judgment : 24.03.2025
was reserved
5. Date when Judgment : 29.04.2025
was pronounced
6. Offence Complained of : Section 33/38 of Delhi
or proved Excise Act 2009
7. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final Judgment : Acquitted
FIR No. 383/17 State Vs Shanaz @ Munaj U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 1
1. BRIEF FACTUAL POSITION:-
1.1 The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 28.12.2017
at about 07:30 PM in front of Jhuggi No.RG-298, Tanki Wali, Jhuggi near Sulabh Shochalya, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS - Khyala, accused Shahzaz @ Munaj was found in possession of two while colour plastic kattas, one plastic katta containing 70 quarter bottles of 'Crazy Romeo Whisky for sale in Arunachal Pradesh (180 ml)' and other katta containing 50 quarter bottles of 'Crazy Romeo Whisky for sale in Arunachal Pradesh (180 ml)' without any license, permit or pass and in contravention of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009. 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 04.08.2018 indicting the accused for commission of the offence U/s 33/38 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009. Ld. Predecessor took cognizance on the same day. Copy of the chargesheet in compliance with Section 207 CrPC was also supplied on the same day.
1.3. Charge for the offence U/s 33/38 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 was framed against the accused on 16.11.2018 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On 11.07.2023, proceedings u/s 294 CrPC were conducted wherein the accused admitted the Copy of FIR i.e. 383/2017 dated 28.12.2017, certificate u/s 65 B of IEA, DD No.31 A dated 28.12.2017, RC No. 138/21/18 and Excise result dated 06.06.2018..
FIR No. 383/17 State Vs Shanaz @ Munaj U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 2
2. MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
2.1 The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined 07 witnesses in total.
S. Name of Documents Dates of Dates of cross-
No. Prosecution Exhibited in examination-in- examination
witnesses Evidence. chief.
PW-1 HC Lokender (i) Form 24.07.2019 27.06.2022
Kumar M-29 -
Ex.PW1/A
(ii) Seizure
memo -
Ex.PW1/B
(iii) Rukka/
tehrir -
Ex.PW1/C
(iv) Case
property -
Ex.P1
(v)
Confiscation
order
accompanied
by
photograph
showing the
destruction
and certificate
under the
signature of
the SHO -
FIR No. 383/17 State Vs Shanaz @ Munaj U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 3
Ex.P2 (colly)
PW-2 ASI Sudarshan (i) Arrest 24.07.2019 24.07.2019
Kumar memo -
Ex.PW2/A
(ii) Personal
search memo
- Ex.PW2/B
PW-3 HC Krishan (i) Entry of 27.06.2022 27.06.2022
register no.21
i.e. RC
No.138/21/18
- Ex.PW3/A
& PW3/B
PW-4 ASI NIL 16.01.2024 16.01.2024
Dharamjeet
PW-5 HC Roop Singh (i) Seal 16.01.2024 16.04.2024
handing over
memo -
Ex.PW5/A
PW-6 W/Ct. Neelam NIL 15.04.2024 15.04.2024
PW-7 ASI Kuldeep NIL 11.11.2024 11.11.2024
Singh
2.2 PW-1 was HC Lokender Kumar who deposed that on 28.12.2017
he was posted at PS Khyala as Head Constable. On that day he was on patrolling duty alongwith Ct. Roop Singh at beat area no.6 and at about 7.30 pm when they reached near Tanki Wali Jhuggi, he saw that accused was FIR No. 383/17 State Vs Shanaz @ Munaj U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 4 present in front of Jhuggi No.WZ-298 and at that time she was in possession of two sacks. On seeing them at the spot, accused tried to move away but she was apprehended and then she was asked about the sack but there was no response from her. On suspicion, the said sacks were opened and the same were found containing liquor bearing mark of 'Crazy Romeo Whiskey for sale in Arunachal Pardesh only'. The said sacks were containing the above-mentioned liquor in the quantity of 70 and 50 quarter bottles respectively and accordingly, the investigation was carried out.
Initially some local residents were asked to join the recovery proceedings but none of them agreed and left the place without disclosing their names and addresses. Two quarter bottles, one from each sack, were taken out as samples and remaining were placed in the respective sacks which were fastened with a white cloth, the quarter bottles which were taken out as samples were wrapped from their bottle neck with a white cloth and sealed with the seal of 'KS'. The said seal was also affixed on the sacks containing remaining liquor and they were given serial no.1 and 2. The quarter bottles taken out as sample were given serial no.1A and 2A. Form M-29 was prepared by PW-1 and the recovered liquor was taken into possession vide seizure memo. Seal after use was handed over to Ct. Roop Chand and thereafter, PW-1 prepared rukka/tehrir which was handed over to Ct. Roop Chand for the registration of FIR whereupon, he got the present FIR registered and returned to the spot alongwith ASI Sudarshan to whom the further investigation was marked. On reaching at the spot, PW-1 handed over to ASI Sudarshan the recovered liquor with the above-mentioned documents and who then prepared site plan at the instance of PW-1 and FIR No. 383/17 State Vs Shanaz @ Munaj U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 5 thereafter, PW-1 was made free from the further proceedings. In this regard, statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of PW-1 was recorded by the IO. Witness was duly examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
2.3 PW- 2 was ASI Sudarshan Kumar who deposed that on 28.12.2017 he was posted at PS Khyala as ASI and the investigation of the present case was marked to him after the registration of FIR. On receipt of copy of FIR alongwith original rukka/tehrir, PW-2 went to the spot alongwith Ct. Roop Chand where HC Lokender was already present and the recovered liquor was in his possession. On reaching of PW-2 at the spot, HC Lokender apprised him that the recovery was effected from accused who had gone away from the spot. Initially, PW-2 prepared site plan and after completion of aforesaid proceedings, he returned to the police station with the case property and same was deposited with MHC(M). The statement of Ct. Roop Chand and HC Lokender was recorded by PW-2. On 29.01.2018 PW-2 alongwith W/Ct. Neelam went to the house of accused Shahnaz for her search where she was found present and then she was arrested and personally searched vide memos. The disclosure statement of accused was recorded by PW-2. After completion of aforesaid proceedings, PW-2 returned to the police station where he recorded the statement of W/Ct. Neelam u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and in the meantime PW-2 was transferred from the PS Khyala and accordingly, the case file was submitted with MHC(R). Witness was duly examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
FIR No. 383/17 State Vs Shanaz @ Munaj U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 6 2.4 PW- 3 was HC Krishan who deposed that on 28.12.2017 he was posted at PS Khyala as Head Constable and was deputed to perform the duty of MHC(M). On that day, he made the entry in register no.19 qua the case property recovered in the present case. The entry was made in register no.19 at serial no.2832 which was further sent to Excise Lab through ASI Dharamjit on 25.05.2018 and the result of the same was received on 06.06.2018 and in respect of the same, entry was made against the abovesaid entry which PW-3 had brought on the day of his testimony alongwith entry of register no.21 i.e. RC No. 138/21/18. Witness was duly examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
2.5 PW- 4 was ASI Dharamjeet who deposed that on 25.05.2018, he was posted as ASI at PS Khyala and was on duty. On that day, he took the case property in the present case from the MHC (M) vide RC No. 138/21/18 which was already Ex.A4 i.e. two quarter bottles duly sealed with the seal of 'KS' and the same were deposited in the Excise Office at ITO. Till the case property remained in possession of PW-4, no tampering was done. Witness was duly examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
2.6 PW- 5 was HC Roop Singh who deposed that on 28.12.2017 he was posted at PS Khyala as constable. On that day, he alongwith HC Lokendar Kumar were on patrolling duty in the beat area. At around 07.30 pm, they reached near Tanki wali Jhuggi and saw the accused in front of Jhuggi no. WZ-200 with two plastic kattas kept near her. Upon seeing them she fled the spot. They found her suspicious, and hence, checked her katta and found FIR No. 383/17 State Vs Shanaz @ Munaj U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 7 illicit liquor inside it. Thereafter, IO/HC Lokender checked the said katta and it was found containing 70 and 50 quarter bottles each of illicit liquor in the two kattas bearing mark of 'Crazy Rameo whiskey for sale in Arunachal Pradesh only'. IO asked public persons to join the investigation but none joined stating personal difficulties, On being asked, the said accused revealed her name and other particulars. Out of those quarter bottles, one quarter bottle from each katta was taken out as sample and moored with the white cloth from its bottleneck and sealed with the seal of 'KS'. The rest of the quarter bottles were put in the same plastic kattas moored with the white cloth and duly sealed with the seal of 'KS'. The said plastic kattas were given serial no.1 and 2 and the sample quarter bottles were given serial no.1A and 2A. After sealing, the seal was handed over to PW-5. Form M-29 was prepared by the IO and the abovesaid liquor as well as samples were seized vide seizure memo. Thereafter, IO prepared the tehrir and the same was handed over to him for registration of FIR. PW-5 went to the police station and got the FIR registered. After registration of FIR, PW-5 returned to the spot with second IO ASI Sudharshan Singh and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir to him at the spot. Second IO prepared the site plan and thereafter he was handed over the case property and got it deposited in the malkhana. Witness was duly examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
2.7 PW- 6 was W/ Ct. Neelam who deposed that on 29/012018 she was posted as constable at PS Khyala. On that day she alongwith IO/ASI Sudershan went to RG-298, Tanki Wali Jhuggi, Raghubir Nagar where FIR No. 383/17 State Vs Shanaz @ Munaj U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 8 accused was formally arrested by the IO and was released on the spot as she had already obtained anticipatory bail. Witness was duly examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
2.8 PW- 7 was ASI Kuldeep Singh who deposed that on 25.05.2018, he was posted at PS Khyala as Head constable. On that day, present case file was marked to him for further investigation. On that day, he had sent samples of the present case alongwith RC certificate No.138/21 to deposit the same in the Excise Lab, ITO through ASI Dharamveer. After obtaining result of the same, he had filed the chargesheet in the court. Witness was duly examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
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 person in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. and statement of accused was recorded separately on 09.01.2025 wherein she denied the allegations and tendered explanation that she had been falsely implicated and nothing was recovered from her possession. She opted not to lead any DE in his defence.
4. ARGUMENTS:
4.1 Ld. APP for the State has argued that the accused person was apprehended with the case property which was recovered from her and on a combined reading of prosecution witnesses' testimony, offence under FIR No. 383/17 State Vs Shanaz @ Munaj U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 9 section 33/38 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 stand proved beyond reasonable doubt, against the accused person.
4.2 On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused person has argued that the investigation in the present case was improper and no photography or videography was done deliberately. He also pointed that the destruction report produced showed destruction of 120 quarter bottles whereas excluding the samples, there would be 118 quarter bottles to destroy. He argued thus that prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the accused person is entitled to be acquitted.
5. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS ON MERITS:
5.1 In the present case, the accused person has been charged with the offence U/s 33/38 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.
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 FIR No. 383/17 State Vs Shanaz @ Munaj U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 10 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 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. From a combined reading of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses examined and the material placed on record in the final report, several doubts have been created over the factum of alleged recovery from the accused. To begin with, it is abundantly clear that the investigating FIR No. 383/17 State Vs Shanaz @ Munaj U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 11 authority has not made any effort to have any public witness join the proceedings at the time of recovery, arrest or completing other formalities.
It is not the case of the prosecution that no public witnesses were available and it is stated by PW-1 as well as PW-5 that there were public persons present at the spot, albeit PW-1 stated that there were 10-15 people while PW-5 claim there were 5-7 people. PW-5 further went on to state that he did not remember how many people were present at the time of recovery and also stated that the owner of the jhuggi in front of which the recovery had taken place was called by the IO to join the investigation but he did not do so. They both reiterated in their cross-examination that IO had asked them to join the investigation, but no formal notice was served on them nor their particulars were noted down by the IO. IO on the other hand stated that the area is the congested residential area but he personally had not asked anybody to join the proceedings.
5.5 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. Merely stating that the public persons 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 provisions of Cr.P.C and IPC as noted below.
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 FIR No. 383/17 State Vs Shanaz @ Munaj U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 12 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" ....
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". 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; Provided that, if such person is not resident in India, the bond shall be secured by a FIR No. 383/17 State Vs Shanaz @ Munaj U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 13 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".
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 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".
5.6 The importance of getting independent witnesses to join the investigation has been laid out by the superior courts in a catena of judgments. In Roop Chand Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1990 (1) CLR FIR No. 383/17 State Vs Shanaz @ Munaj U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 14 69, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana observed that such explanations that public persons refused to join the proceedings are unreliable. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also noted in the case of Pradeep Narayana Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1995 SE 930 that failure of the police to get persons from the locality to join the investigation during search creates doubt about its fairness, benefit of which has to be given to the accused. This court is conscious of the legal position that non- joining of independent witnesses cannot be the sole ground to discard or doubt the prosecution case. However, evidence in such a case is seen in the light of other facts and circumstances and as discussed hereinafter, the testimonies given are not compelling and evidence of independent witness would have rendered much needed corroborative value to the otherwise uncompelling case of the prosecution.
5.7 The first and most compelling discrepancy in the prosecution story is regarding the identification and apprehension of the accused in the present matter ; PW-1 and PW-5, who are the recovery witnesses stated that they had apprehended the accused who had not answered their queries. While PW-1 stated that she had given no response, PW-5 first claimed that she had run away from the spot and then stated that upon enquiry, the accused had revealed her name and other particulars. This in itself is a contradiction. Moreover, the IO i.e. PW-2 stated that when he joined the proceedings the accused was no longer there at the spot and HC Lokender had apprised him of the name of the accused. Thereafter on 29.01.2018 he had gone to her house to arrest her. Firstly, HC Lokender i.e. PW-1 has not FIR No. 383/17 State Vs Shanaz @ Munaj U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 15 stated anywhere in his testimony regarding the accused telling him her name. Moreover, he has failed to explain how he identified the accused or located her only on the basis of her first name and no other particulars. As such, the identity of the accused as the same person is under doubt due to the lack in the investigation chain. This in itself is a major blow to the prosecution case.
5.8 Moreover, there are other discrepancies in the testimonies given by the prosecution witnesses. For instance, as correctly pointed out by the defence, PW-1 admitted in his cross-examination that as per the confiscation order and destruction order Ex.P2 (colly), 120 bottles had been destroyed whereas the total number of bottles recovered itself was 120 out of which two bottles were taken out as samples. This implies that either the samples from the actual recovery were never taken out or that the destruction order has been produced in a mechanically manner with no veracity. PW-4, who had taken the case property to the Excise Lab could not recall the brand of liquor which was taken, further throwing doubt upon the samples which were sent. PW-2 stated that recovery happened in front of RG- 298 whereas PW-5 the same to be WZ-283. PW-7 also stated that the ownership documents of the place of recovery i.e. WZ 298 were obtained and on the record when he received the file, however, upon being asked to point out the same on the judicial file, he conceded that no such document was on the record. These differences were never reconciled by the prosecution.
FIR No. 383/17 State Vs Shanaz @ Munaj U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 16 5.9 Additionally, the seizure memo in the present case is stated to have been made prior to preparation of tehrir and registration of FIR by both recovery witnesses as well as PW-2 i.e. the IO. However, the seizure memo bears complete particulars of the present case FIR in the same ink and handwriting as the rest of the documents. This raises doubt on the proceedings as the implication is that either the FIR was registered prior in time or the document in question was prepared later on at the police station. In both cases, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused person.
5.10 Moreover as per prosecution evidence, the seal was handed over to PW-5 after seizure and sealing. The recovery witnesses were PW-1 & PW-5 i.e. HC Lokender Kumar and HC Roop Singh who had conducted the seizure and sealing before the arrival of the other witnesses. They have both stated that the case property was sealed with the seal of 'KS', however, the prosecution has failed to explain to whom such seal belonged as the said initials do not belong to either of the recovery witnesses. Moreover, PW-5, contradicted himself in his cross-examination by stating that he did not recall who had handed over the seal to him or who had counted the case property. No returning memo has been placed on record either. Tampering with the seal and misidentification of case property cannot be ruled out in the given background as the seal remained with officials of the same police station, if not the IO himself. No independent witness is examined with respect to the same and no photography or videography was done during recovery, sealing or seizure proceedings. In a case where only police witnesses are available, it becomes incumbent upon such officials to FIR No. 383/17 State Vs Shanaz @ Munaj U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 17 comply with all procedural requirements and failure of the same shall work in the favour of the accused. Hence, the omission of the police officers in depositing the seal with the malkhana or preparing the seal returning memo, discredits the prosecution evidence further.
5.11 Most importantly, the very existence of violation of the excise policy has been brought into question as only two quarter bottles among those seized were sent for chemical analysis and found to contain alcohol. The identity of the said samples has also been impugned in view of the destruction order as noted above. The presence of alcohol in the remaining allegedly recovered liquor bottles has not been proved by the prosecution. Neither was the batch number of the remaining bottles noted to correlate them with the sample bottle. Now, since the State has only found two bottles containing 180 ml alcohol, if any, allegedly recovered from the accused, an offence under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 cannot be said to have been made out, as the same falls within the maximum permissible limit specified under Rule 20 of the Delhi Excise Rules, 2010. No batch number of the remaining bottles corresponding to the sample has been noted to indicate similarity of contents.
5.12 The cardinal principle of law that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, remains the dictating factor. The standard of proof in criminal cases is not preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond all reasonable doubt. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that culpability cannot be established on surmises and FIR No. 383/17 State Vs Shanaz @ Munaj U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 18 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 and the possibility of planted or tampered recovery cannot be ruled out. Under the circumstances, it would not be legally viable to convict the accused merely on the basis of testimony of the police officials. Hence, accused Shahnaz @ Munaj W/o Lt. Sh. Mohd. Yamin, R/o H.No. RG-298, Tanki Wali Jhuggi, Raghubir Nagar, Khyala, Delhi is acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 33/38 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN SUKRITI Digitally signed by SUKRITI SINGH COURT ON 29.04.2025 SINGH Date: 2025.04.30 17:55:18 +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: 2025.04.30 17:55:14 +0530 (SUKRITI SINGH) JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04/WEST/ TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI FIR No. 383/17 State Vs Shanaz @ Munaj U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 19