Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: delhi excise act section 38 in State vs Meenu on 6 March, 2025Matching Fragments
1.3. Charge for the offence U/s 33/38 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 was framed against the accused on 05.04.2022 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On 17.08.2022, proceedings u/s 294 CrPC were conducted wherein the accused admitted the Copy of FIR i.e. 174/2020 dated 05.03.2020, DD No.16 dated 05.03.2020, Chemical Examination report no.SCD018031 dated 17.11.2020.
FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 2
2. MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
2.4 PW- 3 was W/Ct. Suman who deposed that on 05.03.2020, she was posted as constable at PS Khyala. On that day, HC Dharambir and Ct. Rajesh were at patrolling duty at beat no.8 PP Raghubir Nagar. At about 07.45 PM, she, on receiving DD No.16 went to the spot i.e. Chameli Park.
When they reached at the spot she saw one lady who was carrying one plastic katta with her. She asked the lady to keep the said katta on the ground and thereafter, on checking the said plastic katta/ bag the same was found containing illicit liquor quarter bottles. The said quarter bottles were taken out from the said katta and in total 120 quarter bottles of illicit liquor were recovered. Each quarter bottle was labeled with 'Crazy Romeo FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 5 Whisky for sale in Arunachal Pradesh only 180 ml'. Thereafter, HC Dharmbir asked the passersby to join the investigation but all of them left the spot after giving reasonable excuses. Due to paucity of time, no notice could be served to them. On inquiry, the name of the accused was revealed to be Meenu W/o Johnny. Thereafter, HC Dharambir took out one sample quarter bottle and kept the remaining 119 quarter bottles in the same plastic katta and tied the mouth of the katta with white cloth and sealed it with the seal of 'DY' and la belled it with serial no.1. The mouth of sample quarter bottle was also tied with the white cloth and sealed with the seal of 'DY' and labeled serial no.1. Seal after use was handed over to Ct. Rajesh. IO HC Dharambir prepared the form M-29 at the spot and seized the illicit quarter bottles and the sample vide seizure memo. Thereafter, HC Dharambir prepared the tehrir at the spot and handed over the same to Ct. Rajesh for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, further investigation was marked to HC Narender who alongwith Ct. Rajesh arrived at the spot i.e. Chameli Park near Kuda Khatta, Raghubir Nagar. After reaching the spot, PW-3 alongwith HC Dharambir handed over the seized case property and the accused namely Meenu to HC Narender. Second IO/ HC Narender recorded the disclosure statement of the accused and served notice u/s 41 A CrPC to the accused. HC Narender prepared the site plan at the instance of HC Dharambir. After completion of aforementioned proceedings, PW-3 alongwith Ct. Rajesh, HC Dharambir and HC Narender returned to Police Post Raghubir Nagar and from there, HC Narender alongwith Ct. Rajesh went to PS Khyala where HC Narender deposited the case property with the MHC(M) PS Khyala. HC Narender FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 6 recorded statement of PW-3 u/s 161 CrPC. The witness was duly cross examined by the defence.
FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 10
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 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 there is no legally admissible evidence against the accused person and that the accused person has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that no videography, photography, examination of any public witness was done despite the recovery being conducted in a thickly populated area. 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 FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 11 under this Act- (a) manufactures, imports, exports, transports or removes any intoxicant;