[ad_1]
Delhi District Court
State vs Geeta on 18 July, 2025
CR Cases 901/2021 State Vs. Geeta
IN THE COURT OF MR. CHATINDER SINGH, JMFC-04,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. : 30/2020
U/s : 33 The Delhi Excise Act, 2009
P.S. : Sangam Vihar
State Vs. Geeta
a) CNR No. of the Case : DLST020040042021
b) Name & address of the : Ct. Bheem, Belt no. 1379/SD,
complainant PS Sangam Vihar, South District, Delhi.
c) Name & address of : Smt. Geeta
Accused W/o Sh. Kailash
R/o House no. H-D-1/48, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi
d) Date of Commission of : 23.01.2020
offence
e) Offence complained of : 33 The Delhi Excise Act, 2009
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
g) Final Order : Acquitted
FIR No. 30/2020 Page No. 1/17
CR Cases 901/2021 State Vs. Geeta
Date of Institution : 22.02.2021
Final arguments heard on : 05.04.2025
Judgment Pronounced on : 18.07.2025
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Vide this judgment the accused namely Geeta W/o Sh. Kailash is being
acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 33 Delhi Excise Act, 2009
in this case FIR No. 30/2020 police station Sangam Vihar by giving benefit
of doubt for the reasons mentioned below.
CASE OF PROSECUTION
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution as unfolded by the police report
under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Cr.P.C‘) is that on 23.01.2020 at about 05:45 PM at H. No.D-
1/48, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of police station
Sangam Vihar, the accused was apprehended by complainant/ Ct. Bhim upon
suspicion while the complainant was on patrolling duty. As per the
prosecution story the accused was apprehended in possession of 144 quarter
bottles of illicit without any permit or license of National Capital Territory of
Delhi in contravention of notification issued by Gov. of NCT of Delhi.
FIR No. 30/2020 Page No. 2/17
CR Cases 901/2021 State Vs. Geeta
COURT PROCEEDINGS
3. Upon completion of investigation, police report under Section 173 of the
Cr.P.C. was filed and the accused was consequently summoned vide order
dated 22.02.2021.
4. The copies of the police report and annexed documents were supplied to the
accused in due compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
CHARGE
5. Vide order dated 06.08.2022 passed by Ld. Predecessor Court, charge for the
offence punishable under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act was framed
against the accused to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
6. Vide order dated 06.08.2022, in compliance of the provisions of Section 294
Cr.P.C., the accused was called upon to admit/deny the FIR No. 30/2020
Police Station Sangam Vihar, certificate under Section 65B of Indian
Evidence Act, DD number 31A dated 12.07.2023 and excise control
laboratory report, which she admitted and the same were accordingly
exhibited as Ex. AD-1 to Ex. AD-3 respectively. In view of the admission
made, the evidence of DO/ASI Vijay Pal, Sh. Rajesh Joshi, chemical
examiner and Sh. Ram Singh, Asst. Chemical Examiner was dispensed with,
being admitted by the accused.
FIR No. 30/2020 Page No. 3/17
CR Cases 901/2021 State Vs. Geeta EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
7. To prove its case, the prosecution in all examined four witnesses.
a. PW-1 HC Bhim deposed that on 23.01.2020 he was posted at PS Sangam
Vihar as Constable and on that day he was on beat patrolling duty. He
further deposed that when he reached at D Block, Gali No.1, Sangam
Vihar, New Delhi, that he saw a lady who was carrying one white katta
on her head. He further deposed that thereafter, he gave the information
of the same to the DO of PS Tigri. He further deposed that in sometime
IO/HC Pradeep along-with W/Ct. Archana reached the spot and
thereafter he handed over the accused and case property to the IO. He
further deposed that on interrogation the accused name was revealed as
Geeta. He further deposed that upon checking the contents of the katta
the IO found total 144 quarter bottles of illicit liquor having label of Asli
Santra Masaledar Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana Only. He further
deposed that thereafter the IO took out one quarter bottle as sample and
remaining quarter bottles were placed back in white katta and he sealed
the sample bottles with cloth on neck and the remaining bottles in katta
with the seal of ‘SGV6SED’. He further deposed that he also filled form
M-29. He further deposed that thereafter the IO prepared the seizure
memo exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A. and thereafter the IO prepared the rukka
and handed over the rukka to Ct. Bhim, for registration of FIR. He
further deposed that thereafter the Ct. Bhim went to the PS and came
back to the spot in sometime and handed over the copy of FIR and
FIR No. 30/2020 Page No. 4/17
CR Cases 901/2021 State Vs. Geeta
original rukka to the IO. He also deposed that IO prepared site plan at his
instance. He further deposed that he along-with the other police officials
and the case property returned to the PS. PW-1 correctly identified the
accused in the court and the case property from the samples and
photographs brought by the MHC(M).
b. PW-2 W/HC Archana deposed that on 23.01.2020 while she was posted
at PS Sangam Vihar as W/Ct., DD entry number 31A was marked to
IO/HC Pradeep Kumar whereupon she along-with the IO went to the
spot i.e. H. No. 1/48, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi where they met HC
Bhim and accused. She further deposed that thereafter the IO enquired
from the lady her name which she revealed as Geeta. She further
deposed that IO gave custody of accused to her. She further deposed that
thereafter the IO checked the case property 144 quarter bottles of illicit
liquor each having label of Asli Santra Masaledar Desi Sharab for sale
in Haryana only. She further deposed that thereafter the IO took out one
sample bottle from each plastic katta and sealed the same with the seal of
SGV6SED. She further deposed that thereafter the case property was
seized vide seizure memo and the accused was joined in investigation.
She further deposed that thereafter the IO prepared the rukka on the
statement of Ct. Bhim and handed over to him for registration of FIR
whereupon Ct. Bhim went to the PS and after sometime returned to the
spot along-with copy of FIR and original rukka. She further deposed that
IO also prepared the site plan and bound down the accused vide notice
under Section 41A Cr.P.C and recorded her disclosure statement. She
FIR No. 30/2020 Page No. 5/17
CR Cases 901/2021 State Vs. Geeta
lastly deposed that thereafter they all came back to the PS and the case
property was deposited in the malkhana. PW-2 correctly identified the
case property and the accused in the Court.
c. PW-3 IO/ HC Pradeep Kumar deposed that on 23.01.2020, he was posted
at PS Sangam Vihar as HC and he received the investigation of this case
after receipt of DD number 31A. He further deposed that thereafter he
reached at the spot alongwith W/Ct. Archana and there he met Ct. Bhim
who handed over the accused alongwith illicit liquor to him. He further
deposed that the name of accused was revealed as Geeta. He further
deposed that then he checked the katta which was found containing 144
quarter bottles of illicit liquors having label of Asli Santra Masaledar
Desi Sharab for sale in haryana only. He deposed that he sealed the case
property with the seal of SGV6SED. He further deposed regarding the
seizure of sample case property. He further deposed that he prepared
rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Bhim for registration of FIR. He
further deposed that he also prepared the site plan at the instance of Ct.
Bhim which was Ex.PW3/B. He further deposed that thereafter he served
a notice upon the accused and deposited the case property in the
malkhana. He further deposed that he along-with other police officials
came back to the PS and case property was deposited in the Malkhana.
He deposed that he recorded the statement of witnesses under Section
161 CrPC.
d. PW-4 HC Ashwani deposed that on 30.06.2020, he upon the direction of
MHC M HC Ajay Kumar who was the Malkhana Incharge went to
FIR No. 30/2020 Page No. 6/17
CR Cases 901/2021 State Vs. Geeta
Central Excise Laboratory, Vikas Bhawan, ITO vide RC no.87/21/20 to
deposit the sample case property of the instant case. He further deposed
that the samples while they were in my possession were sealed and were
not tampered with.
e. Thereupon, on oral statement of Ld. APP for the State the PE was closed
vide order dated 03.01.2025 and matter was fixed for statement of
accused.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
8. In her examination recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C dated 07.02.2025, the
defence of the accused was that of denial. She categorically stated that she is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She further
stated that she was not present at the spot and no recovery has been effected
from her. The accused did not lead any evidence in her defence.
ARGUMENTS
9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State addressed pertinent
arguments. He submitted that the accused as well as the case property have
been correctly identified by the witnesses. He stated that link evidence is
also available. He urged that the case has been proved beyond doubt against
the accused and prayed for conviction of the accused.
10.On the other hand, Sh. S. K. Solanki, learned counsel for the accused
submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated by the police and
nothing was recovered from her possession. She submitted that the absence
FIR No. 30/2020 Page No. 7/17
CR Cases 901/2021 State Vs. Geeta
of public witnesses to the alleged recovery is fatal to the case of the
prosecution, inconsistency in timelines provided by the police officials and
that the IO did not prepare any seal handover memo and thus prayed for
acquittal of the accused.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
11.The record has been thoroughly and carefully perused. The respective
submissions of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and
learned counsel for the accused have been considered.
Charge under Section 33 Delhi Excise Act
12.With respect to the charge under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, the case
of the prosecution is that on the fateful day the accused was found in
possession of illicit liquor without any permit or licence. In order to bring
home the charge against the accused, the prosecution was required to prove
beyond reasonable doubt the recovery of illicit liquor from the possession of
the accused.
Re: Absence of independent witnesses
13.Evidently, no public witness to the recovery of the liquor has been either
cited in the list of witnesses or examined by the prosecution. The recovery is
alleged to have been effected from a residential area. The spot of recovery as
per the site plan Ex. PW-3/B was located on a main road and has several
houses in the neighbour-hood. Further, as per the site plan, the spot of
FIR No. 30/2020 Page No. 8/17
CR Cases 901/2021 State Vs. Geeta
recovery was D-1/48, Sangam Vihar, which, according to the site plan, is
surrounded on all sides by commercial spaces and residential colony. The
place of recovery and apprehension of the accused is, therefore, clearly
located in an area where public persons would be readily available. The
apprehension and recovery were allegedly made at about 05.45 PM in the
month of July, wherein it cannot be said that there would have been no
public persons present at the spot. Moreover, the PWs have also not denied
the presence of public persons at the spot. Thus, at the place and time of the
alleged recovery of illicit liquor and apprehension of the accused, public
persons would in all likelihood have been present and available or have at
least passed by the spot. It is not the case of the prosecution that no public
person was present at or near the spot of arrest and recovery.
14.It is further pertinent to note that PW-1 to PW-3 in their cross-examination,
stated that there were public persons nearby the place of incident and they
had asked them to join the investigation but all of them refused. PWs
admittedly had not given any notice to the said persons upon their refusal to
join the investigation. PW-1 to PW-3 in their cross-examination stated that
they did ask certain public persons to join the proceedings however public
persons refused citing reasons. Further, PW-1 to PW-3 stated that no public
witness came join the investigation. However, neither of them stated the
description of the persons who had allegedly refused to join the
investigation. Further, there is nothing on record to show that PW-1 to PW-3
had served any notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. upon the persons who
refused to join the investigation. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove
FIR No. 30/2020 Page No. 9/17
CR Cases 901/2021 State Vs. Geeta
that any serious effort was made by PW-1 to PW-3 to join public witnesses
in the proceedings. From a perusal of the record, no serious effort for joining
public witnesses appears to have been made. It is a well-settled proposition
that non-joining of public witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the
investigation by police. Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C also casts a statutory duty
on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the
society. Same has not been done in the present case. This casts a doubt on
the fairness of the investigation. Reliance is placed on paragraph 6 of the
judgment in Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri.L.J.
127, wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had observed as under:
” … According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public
witness in the case while according to Kalam Singh, no
public person was present there. It hardly stands to reason
that at a place like a bus stop near Subhas Bazar, there
would be no person present at a crucial time like 07.30
p.m. when there is a lot of rush of commuters for boarding
the buses to their respective destinations. Admittedly, there
is no impediment in believing the version of the Police
officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good
foundation. At least one of them should deposed that they
tried to contact the public witnesses or that they refused to
join the investigation. Here is a case where no effort was
made to join any public witness even though number of
them were present. No plausible explanation from the side
of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the
independent witnesses in a case of serious nature like the
present one. It may be that there is an apathy on the part
of the general public to associate themselves with the
Police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the
I.O. should have made an earnest effort to join the
independent witnesses. No attempt in this direction
appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a
circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery
of the knife from the person of the accused.”
FIR No. 30/2020 Page No. 10/17
CR Cases 901/2021 State Vs. Geeta
15.This Court is, however, conscious that the prosecution case cannot be
thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non-joining of public witnesses
as public witnesses keep themselves away from the Court unless it is
inevitable, as has been held in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat,
AIR 1988 SC 696. However, in the present case, it is not only the absence of
public witnesses which raises a doubt on the prosecution but there are other
circumstances too, as discussed hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the
prosecution version.
Re: Departure entry not proved
16.The present case rests entirely on the alleged recovery of case property, i.e.
illicit liquor, from the possession of the accused at the relevant time by a
single police official, who was on patrolling duty at the relevant time and
place, as per the prosecution story. Police officials are under a statutory duty
to mark their departure and arrival in the register kept in the police station
for the purpose as per the Punjab Police Rules. It is relevant here to
reproduce Chapter 22 Rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which reads
as under:
“22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No. II- The
following matters 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 or prior to the departure of
the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter
personally by signature or seal.
FIR No. 30/2020 Page No. 11/17
CR Cases 901/2021 State Vs. Geeta
Note: The term Police Station will include all places such
as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is
maintained.”
17. Since public persons were not joined in the investigation, the departure
entry of the aforesaid police official namely Ct. Bhim, who was allegedly on
patrolling duty at the relevant time and had apprehended the accused with
case property, becomes a vital piece of evidence. No such daily diary entry
regarding departure of PW-1 is, however, present on record. Despite of
cross-examination of the witnesses qua the said departure entries by the
witnesses the prosecution was not able to bring on record any proof of the
said entries, and the same is indispensable as the present case rests solely on
the alleged recovery made by the aforesaid police official.
18.As per prosecution case, Ct. Bhim was in the area at the relevant time and
after arrest of the accused with alleged property returned to the PS. The DD
entries in register No II are neither showing departure nor arrival entries of
the said official and the same could have been proved by the prosecution.
However, the DD entries regarding return of the police officials have not
been proved nor the DD number of the arrival entry has been brought on
record. It needs to be appreciated that the said arrival entry of the police
officials would have come in handy in establishing the timelines of the case
and corroborating the same with the testimonies of the police witnesses, but
for the reasons best known to the IO the same have not been placed on
record. When the provisions of law are not strictly complied with the same
can be said to be done with oblique motive and are to be seen with
reservation as has been held by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Rattan Lal v
FIR No. 30/2020 Page No. 12/17
CR Cases 901/2021 State Vs. Geeta
State, 1987(2) Crimes29. In the instant case also, failure of prosecution to
bring on record the aforesaid DD entry casts shadow on the prosecution case
as whole case rests on the alleged recovery from the accused.
Re: Possibility of misuse of seal of the investigating officer
19.As per the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the sample of liquor and
case property were sealed by the investigating officer with the seal of
‘SGV6SED’. However, the PWs have not deposed qua the handing over of
the said seals to any other witness or police official and no handing over
memo regarding the same was prepared. The seal in the present case was not
handed over to any independent witness nor was it deposited in the
malkhana to assail the possibility of its misuse. Thus, the possibility that the
case property may have been tampered with cannot be ruled out.
Re: Other infirmities in the prosecution case
20. It further needs to be appreciated that after preparing the rukka IO sent Ct.
Bhim for registration of FIR to the PS, however, admittedly seizure memo
Ex. PW-1/A has been prepared by IO prior to sending the Constable to the
PS for registration of FIR. It is, therefore, clear that the seizure memos of the
liquor must have been prepared at the spot before the rukka was sent to the
police station for registration of the FIR. A perusal of the seizure memo
reveals that it contains the FIR details, thus raising a valid doubt in the mind
of this court as to how it was made before the FIR was lodged and still
contained the FIR details. Accordingly, it follows that the number of the FIR
FIR No. 30/2020 Page No. 13/17
CR Cases 901/2021 State Vs. Geeta
would have come to the knowledge of the investigating officer only after a
copy of the FIR was brought to the spot by Ct. Bhim. Thus, ordinarily, the
FIR number should not find mention in the seizure memo, which came into
existence before registration of the FIR. However, interestingly, the seizure
memo Ex. PW-1/A bear the FIR number and case details in the same ink and
the same handwriting in which the said documents are prepared. The same
indicates that FIR number was mentioned on the said documents while
preparing the same. Reliance here is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi Administration, 1989
Cri. L.J. 127, wherein it was observed paragraph 5 as under:
“… Learned counsel for the State concedes that
immediately after the arrest of the accused, his personal
search was effected and the memo Ex. PW11/D was
prepared. Thereafter, the sketch plan of the knife was
prepared in the presence of the witnesses. After that, the
ruqa EX. PW11/F was sent to the Police Station for the
registration of the case on the basis of which the FIR,
PW11/G was recorded. The F.I.R. is numbered as 36, a
copy of which was sent to the I.O. after its registration. It
comes to that the number of F.I.R. 36 came to the
knowledge of the I.O. after a copy of it was delivered to
him at the spot by a constable. In the normal
circumstances, the F.I.R. No. should not find mention in the
recovery memo or the sketch plan which had come into
existence before the registration of the case. However, from
the perusal of the recovery memo, I find that the FIR is
mentioned whereas the sketch plan does not show the
number of the FIR. It is not explained as to how and under
what circumstances the recovery memo came to bear the
F.I.R. No. which had already come into existence before
the registration of the case. These are few of the
circumstances which create a doubt, in my mind, about the
genuineness of the weapon of offence alleged to have been
recovered from the accused.”
FIR No. 30/2020 Page No. 14/17
CR Cases 901/2021 State Vs. Geeta
21.In paragraph 4 of Mohd. Hashim v. State, 1999 VI AD (Delhi) 569, the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi observed:
“… Surprisingly, the secret information (Ex. PW7/A)
received by the Sub-Inspector Narender Kumar Tyagi (PW-
7), the notice under Section 50 of the Act (Ex. PW5/A)
alleged to have been served on the appellant, the seizure
memo (Ex. PW1/A) and the report submitted under Section
57 of the Act (Ex. PW7/D) bear the number of the FIR (Ex.
PW4/B). The number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/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 as to under
what circumstance number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) had
appeared on the top of the aforesaid documents, which
were allegedly prepared on the spot. This gives rise to two
inferences that either the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) was recorded
prior to the alleged recovery 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 and creates a
good deal of doubt about recovery of the contraband in the
manner alleged by the prosecution.”
22.In the instant case as well, no explanation has been furnished on record as to
how the FIR number and case details have appeared on the seizure memos
Ex. PW-1/A. The same leads one to only one inference that either the said
documents were prepared later or that the FIR had been registered earlier in
point of time or that the IO never joined the investigation at the spot and
every part of the investigation was done by him while sitting at the PS as
alleged by the defence. In both the aforesaid cases a dent is created and
unexplained holes are left in the prosecution story, the benefit of which must
accrue to the accused.
FIR No. 30/2020 Page No. 15/17
CR Cases 901/2021 State Vs. Geeta
23. Furthermore, the testimony of PW-1 to PW-3 also reveals that there are
several inconsistencies regarding the preparation of seal handover memo or
return memo.
24. Another important aspect that needs to be appreciated is, no photography or
videography of the accused with the case property has been made.
Moreover, none of the witnesses other than PW-1 were able to tell the
approximate time when Ct. Bhim was sent to the PS for registration of FIR
thus raising suspicion about their presence at the spot of recovery itself.
Thus, raising sufficient questions regarding the nature and manner in which
the investigation was carried out by the IO.
25.Furthermore, another important aspect that cannot be sidelined merely as an
irregularity is that the recovery witness i.e., Ct. Bhim was alone when he
made a recovery from the possession of the female accused but no effort has
been shown on record to join any public person or female individual before
making a cursory search of the belongings of the accused.
CONCLUSION
26.The facts that no independent witness was cited or examined, daily diary
entry regarding departure of PW-1 has not been proved, possibility of misuse
of seal has not been ruled out and the appearance of FIR number and case
particulars on the seizure memos has not been explained, when kept in
juxtaposition to each other, cast a cloud of suspicion over the prosecution
version. In view of the aforesaid, the possibility of false implication of the
FIR No. 30/2020 Page No. 16/17
CR Cases 901/2021 State Vs. Geeta
accused in the present case cannot be ruled out.
27.It is trite in criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is under an obligation
to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard
of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of
probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of cogent,
convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt,
the benefit must necessarily be allowed to the accused.
28.Thus, in view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the benefit of doubt ought to be granted to the accused, who is
entitled to be exonerated of the charges against her in the present case. The
accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 33 of
the Delhi Excise Act. Case property be confiscated to State as per rules.
29.File be consigned to record room. Digitally
signed by
CHATINDER
CHATINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.18
17:13:22
Announced in the open Court +0530
today i.e. on 18th July, 2025 (Chatinder Singh)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-04
South /Saket Court/New Delhi
FIR No. 30/2020 Page No. 17/17
[ad_2]
Source link