Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.25 seconds)The Delhi Excise Act, 2009
Section 33 in Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
State Of Rajasthan vs Daulat Ram on 23 August, 2005
"In the State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram, 1980,
Cr. Case No. 589/2021 State vs. Suman Page 9 of 13
C.C. Cases 83 (S.C), the Supreme Court observed that the
prosecution has to prove all the links starting from the seizure of
the samples till the same reached the hands of the Public Analyst
so that the court could conclude that the seals remained intact
throughout. Unfortunately, thiswarning seems to have fallen on
deaf ears at least as far as this case is concerned.
Chameli Devi vs State on 19 April, 1993
4.The parcels were allegedly sealed at the spot by
the Investigating Officer and if the Moharer Malkhana is to be
believed the same were deposited with him by the said officer.
However, the Investigating Officer no where says so. In any case,
even if it be taken that the parcels were actually deposited by
him, was it not for him to assure the Court that so long as they
had remained in his possession they had not been tampered
with? This, however, is not the end of the matter. The
Investigating Officer nowhere says that he had filled the C.F.S.L.
form nor is there anything, either in his statement or in the
statement of the Moharer Malkhana or even in the entry made in
the Register, that any such form was ever deposited. The
Constable who took the sample parcel also no where speaks of
his having deposited any such form with the C.F.S.L. There are
judgments of this court in which it has been held that absence of
such evidence would be fatal to the prosecution. Reference, in
this connection may be made to Chameli Devi v. State, 1993
JCC 293, Mool Chand v. State, 1993 (2) Delhi Lawyer 14,
Cr. Case No. 589/2021 State vs. Suman Page 10 of 13
Anoop Joshi v. State, 1992 (2) CC Cases 314, Jagdish Prasad v.
State, 55(1994) DLT 315 and Munni Lal v. The State, 1994 IV
AD (Delhi) 1099.
12. Instead Of Elaborating The History, ... vs . State Of Bihar And Another, It Has Been ... on 6 March, 2007
4.The parcels were allegedly sealed at the spot by
the Investigating Officer and if the Moharer Malkhana is to be
believed the same were deposited with him by the said officer.
However, the Investigating Officer no where says so. In any case,
even if it be taken that the parcels were actually deposited by
him, was it not for him to assure the Court that so long as they
had remained in his possession they had not been tampered
with? This, however, is not the end of the matter. The
Investigating Officer nowhere says that he had filled the C.F.S.L.
form nor is there anything, either in his statement or in the
statement of the Moharer Malkhana or even in the entry made in
the Register, that any such form was ever deposited. The
Constable who took the sample parcel also no where speaks of
his having deposited any such form with the C.F.S.L. There are
judgments of this court in which it has been held that absence of
such evidence would be fatal to the prosecution. Reference, in
this connection may be made to Chameli Devi v. State, 1993
JCC 293, Mool Chand v. State, 1993 (2) Delhi Lawyer 14,
Cr. Case No. 589/2021 State vs. Suman Page 10 of 13
Anoop Joshi v. State, 1992 (2) CC Cases 314, Jagdish Prasad v.
State, 55(1994) DLT 315 and Munni Lal v. The State, 1994 IV
AD (Delhi) 1099.
Mr. Harish Chandra Gulati vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 August, 2009
16. Similarly, in Chandra Wati v. State (Delhi) :
Manjit Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 3 September, 2019
In Manjit Singh
vs. State (2014) 214 DLT 646, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
had observed that detailed panchnama containing the inventory
should be prepared and photographs of the entire lot should be
taken. It was further observed in Para No. 75 that the sample
alongwith photographs and panchnama would be sufficient
Cr. Case No. 589/2021 State vs. Suman Page 11 of 13
evidence during trial. In the present case, no panchnama was
produced. Photographs of the entire lot of the case property were
not produced, however, as is revealed by perusal of the document
Ex P3. Even with respect to the photograph, PW4 admitted that
the contents of the gunny bag are not visible in the photograph.
The same only shows a bag, with no seal visible. PW-1 has
conceded to this effect in their testimonies. In this regard, even
though Section 60 of the Excise Act provides that non production
of case property does not affect the conviction, however, at the
same time, the provision also lays down that samples and
photographs of the confiscated property are to be preserved to
meet evidentiary requirements. Without any proper photographs,
the standard cannot be said to be met beyond reasonable doubt.