Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1.2. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed on 03.10.2015 indicting the accused persons for commission of the offence U/s 33/38/58/52 (2) of Delhi Excise Act, 2009. Ld. Predecessor took cognizance and issued summons to the accused persons on 21.07.2016. Copy of the chargesheet in compliance with Section 207 CrPC was supplied to accused persons.

1.3. Charge for the offence U/s 33/38/58 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 was framed against the accused Rahul @ Rinku on 27.08.2018 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and charge for the offence u/s 52 (2) Delhi Excise Act, 2009 was framed against the accused Anju W/o Fahul on 27.08.2018 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Vide statement u/s 294 CrPC, accused has admitted DD No. 48 B dated 05.04.2016 and Excise result dated 07.06.2016 as Ex.A1 to Ex.A2.

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 Section 58 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 states that:
Whenever an offence has been committed, which is punishable under this Act, following things shall be liable to confiscation, namely-(a)any intoxicant, material, still, utensil, implement, FIR No. 185/ 16 PS Khyala U/s 33/38/58/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 10 apparatus in respect of or by means of which such offence has been committed;(b)any intoxicant unlawfully imported, transported, manufactured, sold or brought along with or in addition to, any intoxicant, liable to confiscation under clause (a);

5.18 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 presence of alcohol in the remaining allegedly recovered liquor bottles has not been proved by the prosecution. Now, since the State has only found two bottles containing 180 ml alcohol, allegedly recovered from the accused persons, an offence under Section 33/38 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 FIR No. 185/ 16 PS Khyala U/s 33/38/58/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 17 to the sample seems to have been noted to indicate similarity of contents. Hence, the very violation of the rules of Delhi Excise Act so as to violate Sections 33/38 have not been cogently established by the prosecution.

5.21 The cardinal principal of law cannot be forgotten that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The standard of proof in criminal cases is not preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond all reasonable doubts.

FIR No. 185/ 16 PS Khyala U/s 33/38/58/52 (2) Delhi Excise Act 18 It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence, that culpability cannot be established on surmises and 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. Under the circumstances, it would not be proper to convict the accused persons merely on the basis of testimony of the police officials as noted above. Hence, accused persons namely Rahul @ rinku S/o Late Sh. Budh Raj R/o H.No.5C/22, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi & Anju W/o Sh. Rahul, H.No. 5C/22, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 33/38/58/52 (2) of Delhi Excise Act, 2009, by giving them the benefit of doubt.