Delhi District Court
State vs . : Ram Dev on 29 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDER JIT SINGH : MM: ROHINI : DELHI
State Vs. : Ram Dev
FIR No. : 100/00
U/s : 61/1/14 Punjab Excise Act
PS : S P Badli
JUDGEMENT
A. Sl. No. of the case 104/3
B. Offence complained of
or proved U/s 61/1/14 Punjab Excise Act
C. Date of Offence 19.02.2000
D. Name of the complainant HC Sahib Rao
No. 384, NW, PS Samay Pur Badli,
Delhi.
E. Name of the accused Ram Dev
S/o Sh. Dasai Ram,
R/o Village Kus Mahra,
PS Kaptan Ganj,
Distt. Ajam Garh, UP.
Present Address :
Jhuggi No. 84, Bhagwan Pura, Delhi.
F. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty.
G. Final order Acquitted
H. Date of Order 29.08.2011
Brief reasons for the decision:
FIR No. 100/00 State Vs Ram Dev 1of 5
1. The accused has been forwarded by the police to face trial under Section 61/1/14 Punjab Excise Act on the allegations that on 17.02.2000 at about 6:00 PM at GTK Road, Libas Pur, secret information was received that a person is travelling on cycle rickshaw is carrying gunny bag which contains illicit liquor. He also disclosed that he is waiting on the bus stand. 2-4 public persons were asked to join the investigation but all of them refused. Without wasting time, raiding party was prepared and police party reached bus stand at about 6:10 PM. On spotting the police party, the said person tried to run away but was apprehended and a gunny bag was recovered from him. On enquiry, bag was found to contain illicit liquor and his name was disclosed to be Ram Dev. 6 full bottles, 12 half bottles and 24 quarter bottles were recovered from him. By way of sample, 1 full bottle, 1 half bottle and 1 quarter bottle was kept separate. These were sealed with the seal of 'SP'. The remaining bottles were also seized separately and sealed with the seal of 'SP'. Form No. 29 was filled. Rukka was sent for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR bearing No. 100/00, the remaining investigation was handed over to Ct. Prem Singh who deposited the samples with Excise Lab, recorded the statements of witnesses, arrested the accused and prepared site plan. After completion of investigation, the present chargesheet was filed.
FIR No. 100/00 State Vs Ram Dev 2of 5
2. After procuring the presence of the accused and supplying him the copies of chargesheet alongwith annexing documents, charge under Section 61/1/14 Punjab Excise Act was framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thus, the prosecution led evidence.
3. The prosecution has examined as many as three witnesses to demonstrate the guilt of accused. HC Kulwant Singh was examined as PW-1 who proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW-1/A. HC Pramod was examined as PW-2 who proved Entry regarding deposit of case property in police station as Ex.PW-2/A. He also deposed that vide RC No.276/21/2000, samples were sent to Excise office through Ct. Surender. Case property was not produced stating that it has been destroyed and stated that some of it might be lying in damaged condition in Malkhana. He was duly cross examined. HC Dev Anand was examined as PW-3 who stated that he was the complainant and carried out the investigation. He re-iterated the proceedings carried out and proved seizure memo of liquor as Ex.PW-3/A, Arrest memo of the accused as Ex.PW-3/B and Personal search memo of accused as Ex.PW-3/C. He was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel. No other PW was examined.
FIR No. 100/00 State Vs Ram Dev 3of 5
5. After conclusion of evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC wherein accused pleaded innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case but chose not to lead any DE.
6. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and carefully perused the record. Prosecution has examined only one material witness, HC Dev Anand, member of raiding party. He was duly cross examined wherein he has mentioned that no shop keeper from the shops in the adjoining market were called to join investigation. He also stated that he purchased cloth for Rs.5/- and he had also stated that he brought candle, seal and thread from PS. In the present case, admittedly accused was arrested at a place which is a busy area and no person was asked to join the investigation. In a case reported as Anoop Joshi Vs State 1992(2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC). Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as 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 shop-keepers 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 FIR No. 100/00 State Vs Ram Dev 4of 5 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".
Therefore, omission on part of police officials to even ask any person to join investigation is vital. Secondly, most of the investigation is conducted by the complainant himself. Case property was also sealed with the seal and thereafter, use of seal has also not been accounted for after usage, like to whom it was it was handed over or not. Thirdly, the case property has not been produced as it has been deposed that it is destroyed. Absence of case property makes it more difficult to connect the accused with the commission of crime. In view of the above said discussion, prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, extending the benefit of doubt, accused Ram Dev is acquitted of the offence under Section 61/1/14 of Punjab Excise Act.
Announced in open Court (Chander Jit Singh)
on this day of 29th August, 2011 Metropolitan Magistrate
Rohini Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 100/00 State Vs Ram Dev 5of 5