Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
2. The investigation commenced on the information of Ct. Shiv Shankar. FIR was registered. Thereafter, the investigation was completed and the charge sheet was filed under Section 33(f) of the Act on 10.06.2011. Cognizance was taken against the accused under Section 33(f) of the Act and provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with after appearance of the accused. After hearing, arguments, a Charge for the offence under Section 33(f) of the Act was framed on 29.05.2012 against the accused to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. It is submitted by the Ld. APP that in view of the well-corroborated testimonies of PW1 Ct. Shiv Shankar, PW3 L/Ct. Munish and PW5 HC Sunder Singh the recovery of the illicit liquor from the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubts. The Ld. APP also relies on the Excise Laboratory Report dated 04.04.2011 whereby the liquor as allegedly recovered from the State v. Rita Devi possession of the accused has been tested. Vide the report, the sample was opined to be that of country liquor. The report is admissible in evidence under Section 293, CrPC.
"22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No.II- The following matters FIR No. 105/2000 PS Kanjhawala 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 State v. Rita Devi or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personality by signature or seal.
"Surprisingly, the secret information (Ex. P.W. 7/B), the notice under Section 50 of the Act (Ex. P.W. 4/A) and the Seizure Memo (Ex. P.W. 4/C) bear the number of the FIR (Ex. P.W. 1/B). The number of the FIR (Ex. P.W. 1/B) given on the top of the aforesaid documents is in the same ink and in the same handwriting which clearly indicates that these documents were prepared at the same time. The Prosecution has not offered any Explanation whatsoever as to under what circumstances number of the FIR (Ex. P.W. 1/B) has appeared on the top of the aforesaid documents, which were allegedly prepared on the 'spot before registration of the FIR. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR (Ex. P.W. 1/B) was recorded prior to the alleged recovery State v. Rita Devi of the contraband or number of the said FIR was inserted in these documents after its registration. In both the situations it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version given by the aforesaid witnesses and creates a good deal of doubt about recovery of the contraband in the manner alleged by the prosecution."