Delhi District Court
State vs Jagdish Jaggu on 16 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT KARAN SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-08, WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT020111422019
CIS No. 5649/19
State Vs. Jagdish Jaggu
FIR No. 178/19
PS. Ranhola
U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission of offence : 15.03.2019
2) The name of the complainant : Ct. Bhagirath
3) The name & parentage of accused : Jagdish @ Jaggu S/o Bihari Lal.
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 : 16.01.2026
Date of Institution : 11.07.2019
Final Arguments heard on : 16.01.2026
Judgment reserved on : 16.01.2026
Judgment announced on : 16.01.2026
State Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggu FIR No. 178/19 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 1/10
JUDGMENT
1) The case of the prosecution against the accused is that on 15.03.2019 at
about 5.00 pm at in front of House No.5, Gali no.1, Panchseel Enclave, Vikas Nagar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Ranhola accused was found in possession of illicit liquor as detailed in seizure memo Mark A without any permit or license.
2) In support of its version, prosecution has examined two witnesses. Accused admitted FIR no.178/19 is Ex. A1, certificate U/s 65B of IE Act is Ex. A2, DD no. 54B dated 15.03.2019 is Ex. A3, DD no.50B dated 15.03.2019 is Ex. A4, Statement of Ct. Manohar Lal and Sh. Rajesh Joshi are Ex. A5 & A6 and Statement of Amit Paul is Ex. A7.
3) After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded separately wherein accused claimed to be innocent and denied the allegations against him. Accused opted not to lead any DE.
4) I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld Counsel for accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
5) The testimonies of prosecution witnesses are being touched upon, in brief, as follows:-
5.1) PW-1 HC Bhagirath deposed that on 15.03.2019, PW1 was posted at PS Ranhola as Contable. On that day, PW1 was on for petrolling in the beat no. 04. At about 05.00 PM. PW1 reached in gali no. 1, near house no. 5, Panchsheel Enclave Vikas Nagar Delhi. PW1 saw one person carrying one plastic sack on his shoulder having illicit liquor. After seeing PW1 in uniform, he turned back but PW1 some how apprehanded him and upon inquiry he told his name Jagdish @ Jaggu. Upon checking the said plastic sack, PW1 found some illicit quarter bottles. PW1 informed the duty officer and after some time IO/HC Raj Kumar reached the spot. IO asked some public persons to State Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggu FIR No. 178/19 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 2/10 join the investigation but to no avail. IO checked the said plastic sack and found a total of 90 quarter bottles, out of them 40 quarter bottle of the make of Empact Green Whiskey for selling in Haryana only (180 ml) and 50 quarter bottle of the make of Episode Classic Whiskey for selling in Haryana only (180 ml). IO took out one bottle as a sample from each brand and sealed it with the seal of RK. IO kept back the remaining bottle in the said plastic sack and sealed it with the seal of RK and the seal was handed over to me. IO filed up form M-29. IO seized the case property vide memo exhibited Ex.
PW-1/A. IO recorded his statement which is now Ex. PW-1/B and prepared the tehrir and sent PW1 to the PS for getting the registration of FIR. PW1 went to the PS and got the FIR registered. After some time, PW1 came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and tehrir to IO. IO recorded the discloure statement of the accused vide memo exhibited as Ex. PW-1/C. IO arrested the accused vide memo exhibited as Ex. PW-1/D and IO recorded the personal search memo of the accused vide memo exhibited as Ex. PW-1/E. IO prepared the site plan at his instance which is now Ex. PW-1/F. Thereafter, they brought the case property and to the PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana of the PS by the IO. PW1 took the accused for medical examination at DDU Hospital, Delhi. Thereafter the accused was produced before the concerned court.
5.2) PW-2 ASI Raj Kumar deposed that on 15.03.2019, PW2 was posted at PS Ranhola as Head Contable. On that day, PW2 received one DD number 54B and went at the spot and met with Ct. Bhagirath who handed over the custody of accused and illicit liquor to PW2. PW2 asked some public persons to join the investigation but to no avail. PW2 checked the said plastic sack and found a total of 90 quarter bottles, out of them 40 quarter bottle of the make of Empact Green Whiskey for selling in Haryana only (180 ml) and 50 quarter bottle of the make of Episode Classic Whiskey for selling in Haryana State Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggu FIR No. 178/19 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 3/10 only (180 ml). PW2 took out one bottle as a sample from each brand and sealed it with the seal of RK. PW2 kept back the remaining bottle in the said plastic sack and sealed it with the seal of RK and the seal was handed over to him. PW2 filed up form M-29 which is now Ex. PW-2/A. PW2 seized the case property vide memo exhibited Ex. PW-1/A. PW2 recorded his statement which is Ex. PW-1/B and endrose it which is now Ex. PW-2/B and sent PW2 to the PS for getting the registration of FIR. He went to the PS and got the FIR registered. After some time, he came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and tehrir to PW2. PW2 recorded the discloure statement of the accused vide memo exhibited as already Ex. PW-1/C. PW2 arrested the accused vide memo exhibited as Ex. PW-1/D and PW2 recorded the personal search memo of the accused vide memo exhibited as Ex. PW-1/E. PW2 prepared the site plan at his instance which is Ex. PW-1/F. Thereafter, they brought the case property and to the PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana of the PS by PW2. He took the accused for medical examination at DDU Hospital, Delhi. Thereafter the accused was produced before the concerned court and sent to J/C. PW2 recorded the statement of witnesses and sent sample to lab and procured result now Ex. AO and submitted chargesheet before the court.
6) 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.
7) 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 State Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggu FIR No. 178/19 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 4/10 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.
8) 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 testimony of PW-1 to PW-2 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 State Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggu FIR No. 178/19 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 5/10 legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
9) 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.
10) 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."
11) No seal handing over memo is on record. The police official having the State Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggu FIR No. 178/19 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 6/10 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.
12) 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.
13) Further the case property was sent for chemical examination on 04.04.2019 while the same was seized on 15.03.2019. The entire paper formalities were completed in 15.03.2019 only. When the entire codal formalities were completed on 15.03.2019 than the delay of 19 days 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.
14) 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 State Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggu FIR No. 178/19 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 7/10 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.
15) 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 ..........................."
16) The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the 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 State Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggu FIR No. 178/19 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 8/10 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).
17) 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 Jagdish @ Jaggu 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. ANKIT Digitally by ANKIT signed KARAN KARAN SINGH Date: 2026.01.16 SINGH 15:43:03 +0530 Announced in the open court (ANKIT KARAN SINGH) on 16.01.2026 JMIC-08,West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
State Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggu FIR No. 178/19 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 9/10