Delhi District Court
State vs Meenu on 6 March, 2025
THE COURT OF MS. SUKRITI SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04, WEST
ROOM NO. 268, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE
VERSUS
MEENU
CASE No. 7868/2021
FIR No. 174/2020
P.S. Khyala
U/S- 33/38 Delhi Excise Act,
2009
1.
Date of commission of offence : 05.03.2020
2. Name of the Complainant : ASI Dharambir Yadav
3. Name of the accused,
and his parentage and residence: Meenu W/o Sh. Jony, R/o
H.No. M-224, Raghubir
Nagar, Khyala, Delhi
4. Date when judgment : 24.02.2025
was reserved
5. Date when Judgment : 06.03.2025
was pronounced
6. Offence Complained of : Section 33/38 of Delhi
or proved Excise Act 2009
7. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final Judgment : Acquitted
FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 1
1. BRIEF FACTUAL POSITION:-
1.1 The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 05.03.2020
at about 07.30 PM at Chameli Park, Koora Khatta, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi
within the jurisdiction of PS – Khyala, accused Meenu was found in
possession of one plastic sack containing 120 quarter bottles of ‘Crazy
Romeo Whisky for sale in Arunachal Pradesh (180 ml)’ without any
license, permit or pass and in contravention of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009.
Case property was seized and the present case was registered, starting the
investigation in the present matter.
1.2. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed on
26.08.2021 indicting the accused for commission of the offence U/s 33/38
of Delhi Excise Act, 2009. Ld. Predecessor took cognizance and issued
summons to the accused on 26.08.2021. Copy of the chargesheet in
compliance with Section 207 CrPC was supplied on 30.10.2021.
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:
2.1 The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined 05 witnesses
in total.
S. Name of Documents Dates of Dates of
No. Prosecution Exhibited in examination-in- cross-
witnesses Evidence. chief. examination
PW-1 HC Narender (I) Site plan - 17.08.2022 17.08.2022
Ex.PW1/A
PW-2 HC Ashok Entry at serial 17.08.2022 17.08.2022
no.2027 -
Ex.PW2/A
(OSR)
PW-3 W/Ct. Suman (i) Seizure 19.09.2022 19.09.2022
memo -
Ex.PW3/A
(ii)
Disclosure
statement of
accused -
Ex.PW3/B
(iii) Case
property -
Ex.P1
PW-4 ASI Dharambir (i) 19.09.2022 19.09.2022
Yadav Confiscation
order,
destruction
order
FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 3
alongwith
one
photograph -
Ex.P3 (colly)
PW-5 ASI Gajraj NIL 08.11.2023 08.11.2023
PW-6 Ct. Rajesh NIL 22.02.2024 22.02.2024
2.2 PW-1 was HC Narender who deposed that on 05.03.2020, he was
posted at Police Post Ragubir Nagar, PS Khyala as HC and the
investigation of the present case was entrusted to him after the registration
of FIR and thereupon, he alongwith Ct. Rajesh went to the place of
recovery i.e. Chameli Park nearby Kuda Khatta, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi. At
the spot, HC Dharambir was already present alongwith W/Ct. Suman who
had apprehended the present accused namely Meenu for having in her
possession illicit liquor. At the spot, first IO HC Dharambir handed over to
PW-1 the sealed case property alongwith the seal sample and seizure memo
of the same with form M-29. At the spot, PW-1 prepared the site plan
Ex.PW1/A. Accused was interrogated and her disclosure statement was
recorded by him. Accused was served a notice u/s 41 A CrPC for her
appearance before the Court. After completion of the aforementioned
proceedings, PW-1 alongwith Ct. Rajesh and W/Ct. Suman returned at
police post and therefrom, he went to PS Khyala where the case property
was deposited with MHC(M). The statement of W/Ct. Suman, Ct. Rajesh
and HC Dharambir were recorded by PW-1 u/s 161 CrPC. The furtherFIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 4
investigation of the present case was handed over to HC Gajraj. The
witness was duly cross examined by the defence.
2.3 PW- 2 was HC Ashok who deposed that he had brought the register
no.19 and 21 qua the entry made by the then MHC(M) namely HC
Randhir. As per record, on 05.03.2020, the recovered case property of the
present case alongwith sealed samples were deposited by the IO HC
Dharambir with MHC(M) and in this regard, an entry at serial no.2027 was
made and further on 31.07.2020, the case property i.e. sealed sample was
sent to Excise Lab vide RC No.108/21/20 and the said entry number
registered was brought to the court. The result of the sealed sample was
received and an entry in this regard was made against the abovesaid serial
number. The said entry was exhibited. The witness was duly cross
examined by the defence.
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.
2.5 PW-4 was ASI Dharambir Yadav who deposed that on 05.03.2020,
he was posted as Head constable at PS Khyala. On that day, he alongwith
Ct. Rajesh was on patrolling duty at beat no.8 PP Raghubir Nagar. At about
07.30 PM, when they reached near Sarvodaya Vidyalaya M Block, one
secret informer told them that one lady was carrying illcit liquor in a plastic
katta and can be caught red handed if raided now and that she is standing
near Chameli Park, Kuda Khatta. Thereafter, PW-4 alongwith Ct. Rajesh
went to the spot and they saw one lady carrying said plastic katta. They
asked her to stop and on checking the same it was found containing illicit
liquor quarter bottles. Thereafter, PW-4 informed the duty officer PP
Raghubir Nagar and asked her to sent one W/ Ct at the spot. After some
time, W/Ct. Suman arrived at the spot and she apprehended the said lady
carrying katta and asked her to keep the said katta on the ground and on
checking the said plastic katta it was found containing illicit liquor quarter
bottles which were taken out from the said katta and in total 120 quarter
bottles of illicits liquor were recovered. Each quarter bottle was labeled
with ‘Crazy Romeo Whisky for sale in Arunachal Pradesh only 180 ml’.
Thereafter, PW-4 asked the passersby to join the investigation but all of
them left the spot after giving the 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, PW-4 took out
one sample quarter bottle and kept the remaining 119 quarter bottles in the
FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 7
same plastic katta and tied the mouth of the katta with white cloth and
sealed it with the seal of ‘DY’ and labeled 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.1A. Seal after use was handed over to Ct.
Rajesh. PW-4 prepared the form M-29 at the spot and seized the illicit
quarter bottles and the sample vide seizure memo. Thereafter, he 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-4
alongwith W/Ct. Suman 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 her notice u/s
41 A CrPC. HC Narender prepared the site plan at instance of PW-4. After
completion of aforementioned proceedings, PW-4 alongwith Ct. Rajesh,
W/ Ct. Suman 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 recorded statements of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC and
we were discharged. The witness was duly cross examined by the defence.
2.6 PW-5 was ASI Gajraj who deposed that on 11.07.2020 he was
posted as HC at PS Khyala and was on duty. On that day, the investigation
of present case was marked to him by concerned SHO PS Khyala. On
receiving the case file, the sample of the illicit liquor regarding the present
FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 8
case was deposited by Ct. Rajesh in the Excise Lab, ITO, Delhi. On
05.12.2020, PW-5 obtained the result from the Excise Lab and thereafter he
prepared the present chargesheet and the same was filled in the court. The
witness was duly cross examined by the defence.
2.7 PW-6 was Ct. Rajesh who deposed that on 05.03.2020, he was
posted at Police Post Raghubir Nagar, PS Khyala as constable. On that day,
he alongwith IO/HC Dharamveer Yadav was on patrolling duty in the beat
area 8. At around 07.30 pm the were standing near Sarvodya Vidyalaya M
Block when a secret informer informed them that a lady is taking illicit
liquor towards Chameli Park Kuda Khatta. Then secret informer left the
spot. Then, they went to the above mentioned address and saw the above
mentioned lady carrying illicit liquor. Thereafter IO asked her to stop and
then informed about the matter in the Police Post Raghubir Nagar. Then,
IO asked 3-4 public persons to join the investigation but they refused the
same stating that they do not want to get involved in court/police matters
and left the spot without disclosing their name and address. Due to paucity
of time, no notice was served by IO to them. Thereafter, IO checked the
said katta and it was found containing 120 quarter bottles bearing mark of
‘Crazy Romeo whiskey 180 ml for sale in Arunchal Pradesh only’.
Meanwhile W/Ct. Suman reached the spot. Thereafter, they asked the name
and other particulars of the said lady and she disclosed her name to be
Meenu. Out of bottles seized, one quarter bottle was taken out as sample
and moored with the white cloth from its bottleneck and sealed with the
seal of ‘DY’. The rest of the quarter bottles were put in the same plastic
FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 9
katta, moored with the white cloth and duly sealed with the seal of ‘DY’.
After sealing, the seal was handed over to PW-6. Form M-29 was prepared
by PW-6 and the abovesaid liquor as well as sample were seized vide
seizure memo. Thereafter, IO prepared the tehrir and the same was handed
over to PW-6 for registration of FIR. PW-6 went to the police station and
got the FIR registered. After registration of FIR, he handed over the tehrir
and copy of FIR to second IO HC Narender and then went to the spot with
him. First IO handed over the case property, accused and Form M-29 to
him. Second IO prepared the site plan. Then IO interrogated the accused
and recorded the disclosure statement of accused. Thereafter accused was
served notice u/s 41A CrPC and was sent home. Then PW-6 alongwith IO
took the case property to the police station and got it deposited in the
malkhana. PW-6 deposited the sample of the case property at Excise Office
ITO on 31/07/2020.
3. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C :
3.1 After the prosecution evidence was closed, the entire incriminating
evidence was put to accused person in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C r/w
Section 281 Cr.P.C. and statement of accused was recorded separately on
28.10.2024 wherein she denied the allegations and tendered explanation
that she had been falsely implicated and nothing was recovered from her
possession. She opted not to lead any DE in his 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;
(b) constructs or works any manufactory or
warehouse; (c) bottles any liquor for purposes of
sale; (d) uses, keeps or has in his possession any
material, still, utensil, implement or apparatus,
whatsoever, for the purpose of manufacturing
any intoxicant other than toddy or tari; (e)
possesses any material or film either with or
without the government logo or logo of any
State or wrapper or any other thing in which
liquor can be packed or any apparatus or
implement or machine for the purpose of
packing liquor; (f) sells any intoxicant, collects,
possesses or buys any intoxicant beyond the
prescribed quantity, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than six months but which may extend to three
years with fine, which shall not be less than fifty
thousand rupees which may extend to one lakh
rupees’.
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’.
FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 12
5.4. From a combined reading of the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses examined and the material placed on record in the final report,
several doubts have been created over the factum of alleged recovery from
the accused. To begin with, it is abundantly clear that the investigating
authority has not made any effort to have any public witness join the
proceedings at the time of recovery, arrest or completing other formalities.
It is not the case of the prosecution that no public witnesses were available
and it is stated by PW-1, PW-3, PW-4 & PW-6 that the place where the
accused was apprehended was a residential area and public persons were
asked to join the investigation, but no formal notice was served on them
nor their particulars were noted down by the IO. Moreover, the witnesses
could not state any departure entry regarding their patrolling which would
have brought them to the spot of recovery. Further Ct. Suman stated that
the checking of the katta happened after she reached the spot, which she
also confirmed in her cross examination when she stated that accused had
possession of the plastic katta when she reached the spot. However, ASI
Dharambir and Ct. Rajesh stated that the katta had already been opened and
checked before the arrival of Ct. Suman. No sufficient explanation was
given regarding these contradictory stances or for not including any public
witnesses to the recovery proceedings.
5.5 When a statutory provision mandates that an independent witness
has to be joined in the investigation, the IO is duty bound to comply with
the same. Merely stating that the public persons refused to join the
investigation is not sufficient to serve the purpose of the prosecuting
FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 13
agency, more so, when the IO failed to even record the names and details
of such person, and failed to take any required steps in terms of provisions
of Cr.P.C and IPC as noted below.
Section 100(4) Cr.P.C states that,”before
making a search under this Chapter, the officer
or other person about to make it shall call upon
two or more independent and respectable
inhabitants of the locality in which the place to
be searched is situate, or of any other locality if
no such inhabitant of the said locality is
available or is willing to be a witness to the
search, to attend and witness the search and may
issue an order in writing to them or any of them
so to do”….Section 37 Cr.P.C. states that,
“every person is bound to assist a Magistrate or
police officer reasonably demanding his aid- (a)
in the taking or preventing the escape of any
other person whom such Magistrate or police
Officer is authorized to arrest ; or (b) in the
prevention of suppression of a breach of the
peace; or (c) in the prevention of any injury
attempted to be committed to any railway, canal,
telegraph or public property”. Section 42
Cr.P.C. states that, “when any person who, in
the presence of the police officer, has committed
or has been accused of committing a non-
cognizable offence refuses, on demand of such
officer, to give his name and residence, or gives
a name or residence which such officer has
reason to believe to be false, he may be arrested
by such officer in order that his name or
FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 14
residence may be ascertained.
(2) When the true name and residence of such
persons have been ascertained, he shall be
released on his executing a bond, with or
without sureties, to appear before a Magistrate,
if so required; Provided that, if such person is
not resident in India, the bond shall be secured
by a surety or sureties resident in India.
(3) Should the true name and residence of such
person not be ascertained within twenty-four
hours from the time of arrest, or should he fail to
execute the bond, or, if so required, to furnish
sufficient sureties, he shall forthwith be
forwarded to the nearest Magistrate having
jurisdiction”.
Section 187 IPC states that, “whoever, being
bound by law to render or furnish assistance to
any public servant in the execution of his public
duty, intentionally omits to give such assistance,
shall be punished with simple imprisonment for
a term which may extend to one month, or with
fine which may extend to two hundred rupees,
or with both; and if such assistance be
demanded of him by a public servant legally
competent to make such demand for the purpose
of executing any process lawfully issued by a
Court of Justice, or of preventing the
commission of an offence, or of suppressing a
riot, or affray, or of apprehending a person
charged with or guilty of an offence, or of
having escaped from lawful custody, shall be
punished with simple imprisonment for a term
FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 15
which may extend to six months, or with fine
which may extend to five hundred rupees, or
with both”.
5.6 The importance of getting independent witnesses to join the
investigation has been laid out by the superior courts in a catena of
judgments. In Roop Chand Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1990 (1) CLR
69, the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana observed that such
explanations that public persons refused to join the proceedings are
unreliable. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also noted in the
case of Pradeep Narayana Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1995 SE 930 that
failure of the police to get persons from the locality to join the investigation
during search creates doubt about its fairness, benefit of which has to be
given to the accused. In the present matter, hence, the chances of false
implication and planted recovery, as alleged by the defence, cannot be
ruled out.
5.7 Moreover, there are other discrepancies in the testimony given by
the prosecution witnesses. For instance, PW-3 stated in her examination in
chief that ‘when we reached the spot’ however she had gone to the spot
alone upon receipt of the relevant DD number. Moreover, she stated that
she had been brought to the spot by Ct. Anil who left after dropping her,
but he was never included as a prosecution witness in the present matter.
Similarly, PW-4 claimed that he had left the spot after taking a lift from a
public person on his motorcycle, but neither the identity of such person is
disclosed nor has he been made a prosecution witness. Moreover, PW-4 &
FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 16
PW-6 are stated to have left for patrolling together however in their
respective examinations, PW-4 claimed that they were on patrolling on foot
while PW-6 stated that they were patrolling on motorcycle. These
differences were never resolved by the prosecution.
5.8 Additionally, the seizure memo in the present case is stated to have
been made prior to preparation of tehrir and registration of FIR by all
recovery recovery witnesses and PW-4 reiterated the same in his cross
examination. However, the seizure memo bears complete particulars of the
present case FIR at the top in similar ink. This raises doubt on the
proceedings as the implication is that either the FIR was registered prior in
time or the document in question was prepared later on at the police
station. In both cases, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused persons.
5.9 Moreover as per prosecution evidence, the seal was handed over to
PW Ct. Rajesh after seizure and sealing. PW-4 admitted in his cross
examination that no seal handing over memo had appeared and there is no
mention in the entirety of the prosecution evidence as to who the seal was
given to after the conclusion of proceedings or when. No returning memo
has been placed on record either. Tampering with the seal cannot be ruled
out in the given background as the same remained with officials of the
same police station if not the IO himself. No independent witness is
examined with respect to the same and no photography or videography was
done during recovery, sealing or seizure proceedings. In a case where only
police witnesses are available, it becomes incumbent upon such officials to
FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 17
comply with all procedural requirements and failure of the same shall work
in the favour of the accused. Hence, the omission of PW-6 in depositing the
seal with the malkhana or preparing the seal returning memo, discredits the
prosecution evidence further.
5.10 Most importantly, the very existence of violation of the excise
policy has been brought into question as only one quarter bottle among
those seized was 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. Neither was the batch number of
the remaining bottles noted to correlate them with the sample bottle. Now,
since the State has only found one bottle containing 180 ml alcohol,
allegedly recovered from the accused, an offence under Section 33 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 to the sample has been noted to indicate similarity of
contents, as admitted by PW-6 in his cross examination.
5.11 The cardinal principle of law that the prosecution has to prove its
case beyond all reasonable doubts, remains the dictating factor. The
standard of proof in criminal cases is not preponderance of probabilities but
proof beyond all reasonable doubt. 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,
FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 18
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 and the possibility of planted or tampered recovery cannot be
ruled out. Under the circumstances, it would not be legally viable to
convict the accused merely on the basis of testimony of the police officials.
Hence, accused Meenu W/o Sh. Jony, R/o H.No. M-224, Raghubir Nagar,
Khyala, Delhi is acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 33/38 of Delhi
Excise Act, 2009.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN SUKRITI Digitally signed by
SUKRITI SINGH
COURT ON 06.03.2025 SINGH Date: 2025.03.08
17:27:10 +0530
(SUKRITI SINGH)
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-04/WEST/
TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI
Containing 19 pages, all signed by the presiding officer
Digitally signed
SUKRITI by SUKRITI
SINGH
SINGH 17:27:18
Date: 2025.03.08
+0530
(SUKRITI SINGH)
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-04/WEST/
TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI
FIR No. 174/2020 State Vs Meenu U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 19
[ad_1]
Source link