Delhi District Court
State vs Ravi on 29 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARIDAMAN SINGH CHEEMA,
JMFC-05, SED, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
DLSE020157462019
Cr. Case No. -: 3268/2019
FIR No. -: 284/2016
Police Station -: Sarita Vihar
Section(s) -: 33/38/52(2) of Delhi Excise Act
STATE
VS.
RAVI & ANR.
1. Name of Complainant :- ASI Rajender Lal, No.
2778/SE
2. Name of Accused Persons :- 1) Ravi S/o Sh. Sh.
Khem Chand
and;
2) Mohd. Mohsin S/o
Sh. Mohd. Afzal
3. Offence complained of or :- 33/38/52(2) of Delhi
proved Excise Act
4. Plea of Accused Persons :- Not guilty
5. Date of Commission of offence :- 10.06.2016
6. Date of Filing of case :- 24.04.2019
7. Date of Reserving Order :- 10.07.2025
8. Date of Pronouncement :- 29.07.2025
9. Final Order :- 1) Accused Ravi Aridaman
singh
acquitted u/s 33/38 of cheema
Digitally signed
by Aridaman
singh cheema
FIR No. 284/2016 State v. Ravi & Anr. Page 1 of 19 Date: 2025.07.29
16:26:14 +0530
Delhi Excise Act
and;
2) Accused Mohd.
Mohsin acquitted u/s
52(2) of Delhi Excise
Act.
JUDGMENT
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 10.06.2016 at about
11:10PM at road No.13, Near L Pocket, Sarita Vihar Flyover, New
Delhi, accused Ravi was found in possession of illicit liquor as
mentioned in the seizure memo which was being transported in
vehicle bearing no. DL-3CP-9196 (Santro Car), which was registered
in the name of accused Mohd. Mohsin, in violation of Rule 20 of
Delhi Excise Rules, 2010.
2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was
carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statement of
witnesses were recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, “Cr.PC“). Relevant record was
collected. Final report under section 173 CrPC, was prepared against
the abovenamed Accused persons and chargesheet was presented in
the court u/s 33/38/52(2) Delhi Excise Act on 24.04.2019.
3. On the appearance of accused, a copy of chargesheet was
supplied to him in terms of section 207 of CrPC. On finding a prima
Aridaman
facie case against both the Accused, charge under Section 33/38 Delhi singh
cheema
Digitally signed
FIR No. 284/2016 State v. Ravi & Anr. Page 2 of 19 by Aridaman
singh cheema
Date: 2025.07.29
16:26:18 +0530
Excise Act was framed against the Accused Ravi on 28.06.2022 for
which the Accused Ravi pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Further,
separate charge under Section 52 (2) Delhi Excise Act was framed
against the Accused Mohd. Mohsin on 28.06.2022 for which the
Accused Mohd. Mohsin pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial for the offence u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act,
prosecution led the following documentary and oral evidence:
5. PW-1 HC Vinay Kumar, deposed that on 24.06.2016, on the
instruction of the IO, he collected the sample case property from the
MHC(M) and deposited the same at Exicse Lab, ITO vide road
certificate 111/21/16. The same is Ex. PW1/A.
In his cross-examination on behalf of accused Mohsin he
admitted that he was not an eye witness to the recovery of the case
property.
Accused Ravi adopted the cross-examination of accused
Mohsin.
6. PW-2 retired ASI Rajender Lal, deposed that on 10.06.2016, he
was posted as PS Sarita Vihar as ASI. On that day, he alongwith Ct.
Shahid had gone to Madanpur Khadar for attending DD No. 51A.
Thereafter, they reached L Pocket, Sarita Vihar at about 11.10 PM. At
that time, one secret informer came to them and told that one car
Santro bearing registration No. DL 3 CP 9196 carrying illicit liquor
Aridaman
will come to L Block bus stand and if raid was conducted, the accused singh
cheema
Digitally signed by
Aridaman singh
cheema
FIR No. 284/2016 State v. Ravi & Anr. Page 3 of 19 Date: 2025.07.29
16:26:22 +0530
and the case property could be recovered. Thereafter, he shared the
information with senior officer and thereafter constituted a raiding
party consisting of myself, Ct. Shahid and secret informer. Thereafter,
they reached bus stand, L Block and at that time, they saw one car
Santro bearing registration No. DL 3 CP 9196 stationed at the
aforesaid spot and secret informer pointed out towards the same and
told that the aforesaid vehicle is a same with regard to which he had
given secret information. Thereafter, he relieved the secret informer.
Thereafter, they went towards the aforesaid car and one person was
sitting in the front passenger seat. Thereafter, they apprehended him.
On interrogation, he revealed his name as Ravi. Thereafter, they
checked the said car. 16 cartons were found kept in the back seat and
the diggi of the said car. There were 50 quarter bottles in each carton
having lable asli santra masaledar desi sharab for sale in haryana only.
Thereafter, he took out one quarter bottle from all the carton for
sample purpose. Rest of the bottles were kept in the same cartons.
Thereafter, he kept two cartons each in seven separate plastic kattas.
Thereafter, he filled Form M-29. Thereafter, he sealed the case
property with seal of RL. Thereafter, he seized the case property vide
seizure memo Ex. PW2/A. He also seized the car vide seizure memo
Ex. PW2/B. Thereafter, he prepared rukka which is Ex. PW2/C and
handed over the same to Ct. Shahid for registration of FIR.
Thereafter, he went to the PS and got the FIR registered and came
back to the spot alongwith the second IO HC Sharad Kumar.
Thereafter, he handed over the case property, accused and the
documents to second IO. Thereafter, he was relieved. MHC(M) had
produced order dt. 15.08.2019 vide which case property in the present
Digitally
signed by
Aridaman
Aridaman singh
singh cheema
FIR No. 284/2016 State v. Ravi & Anr. Page 4 of 19 cheema Date:
2025.07.29
16:26:26
+0530
case has been destroyed. The order is Ex. P1. MHC(M) had produced
the sample case property, i.e., one quarter bottle in unsealed condition
on which FIR No. 284/16 was written and having label asli santra
masaledar desi sharab for sale in haryana only. The witness after
seeing the sample case property correctly identifies the same and
states that said sample belongs to the same brand seized him. The
sample case property is Ex. P2.
In his cross-examination on behalf of accused Ravi, admitted
that he did not prepare any seal handing over memo. He had
requested 3/4 public persons to join the investigation. However,
nobody agreed. He did not serve any notice to them on their refusal.
He denied the suggestion that the accused was apprehended from his
house and case property was planted upon him. No DD entry was
made after receiving the secret information. He admitted that he had
not made any photograph or videograph of the proceedings. He
admitted that the place of the incident is a public place.
He was not cross-examined on behalf of accused Mohsin
7. PW-3 HC Shahid, deposed that on 10.06.2016, he was posted
as PS Sarita Vihar as Constable. On that day, he alongwith IO/ASI
Rajenderlal had gone to Madanpur Khadar for attending DD No. 51A.
Thereafter, they reached L Pocket, Sarita Vihar at about 11.10 PM. At
that time, one secret informer came to them and told that one car
Santro bearing registration No. DL 3 CP 9196 carrying illicit liquor
will come to L Block bus stand and if raid was conducted, the accused
and the case property could be recovered. Thereafter, IO shared the
information with senior officer and thereafter constituted a raiding Aridaman
singh
cheema
Digitally signed by
Aridaman singh
FIR No. 284/2016 State v. Ravi & Anr. Page 5 of 19 cheema
Date: 2025.07.29
16:26:30 +0530
party consisting of himself, IO and secret informer. Thereafter, they
reached bus stand, L Block and at that time, they saw one car Santro
bearing registration No. DL 3 CP 9196 stationed at the aforesaid spot
and secret informer pointed out towards the same and told that the
aforesaid vehicle was a same with regard to which he had given secret
information. Thereafter, IO relieved the secret informer. Thereafter,
they went towards the aforesaid car and one person was sitting in the
front passenger seat. Thereafter, they apprehended him. During that
time, Ct. Pankaj from Excise Department also reached the spot. On
interrogation, he revealed his name as Ravi. Thereafter, they checked
the said car. 16 cartons were found kept in the back seat and the diggi
of the said car. There were 50 quarter bottles in each carton having
lable asli santra masaledar desi sharab for sale in haryana only.
Thereafter, IO took out one quarter bottle from all the carton for
sample purpose. Rest of the bottles were kept in the same cartons.
Thereafter, IO kept two cartons each in seven separate plastic kattas.
Thereafter, IO filled Form M-29. Thereafter, IO sealed the case
property with seal of RL. Thereafter, IO seized the case property vide
seizure memo already Ex. PW2/A. IO also seized the car vide seizure
memo already Ex. PW2/B. Thereafter, IO prepared rukka and handed
over the same to him for registration of FIR. Thereafter, he went to
the PS and got the FIR registered and came back to the spot alongwith
the second IO HC Sharad Kumar. Thereafter, IO handed over the case
property, accused and the documents to second IO. Thereafter, 2 nd IO
arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/A and conducted his
personal search Ex. PW3/B and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.
PW3/C. Thereafter, they came to the PS alongwith the case property. Digitally
signed by
Aridaman
Aridaman singh
singh cheema
cheema Date:
FIR No. 284/2016 State v. Ravi & Anr. Page 6 of 19 2025.07.29
16:26:36
+0530
The case property was deposited in the malkhana. The MLC of
accused was got conducted and he was put in lockup. MHC(M) had
produced order dt. 15.08.2019 vide which case property in the present
case has been destroyed. The order is Ex. P1. MHC(M) had produced
the sample case property, i.e., one quarter bottle in unsealed condition
on which FIR No. 284/16 is written and having label asli santra
masaledar desi sharab for sale in haryana only. The witness after
seeing the sample case property correctly identified the same and
states that said sample belongs to the same brand seized him. The
sample case property is Ex. P2.
In his cross-examination on behalf of accused Ravi he admitted
that IO did not prepare any seal handing over memo. IO had
requested 3/4 public persons to join the investigation. However,
nobody agreed. IO did not serve any notice to them on their refusal.
He denied the suggestion that the accused was apprehended from his
house and case property was planted upon him. No DD entry was
made after receiving the secret information. He admitted that IO had
not made any photograph or videograph of the proceedings. He
admitted that the place of the incident is a public place.
He was not cross-examined on behalf of accused Mohsin
8. PW-4 ASI Sharad Kumar, deposed that on 11.06.2016, he was
posted as HC at PS Sarita Vihar. On that day duty officer informed me
that an FIR had been marked to me regarding seizure of illicit liquor.
He collected the copy of FIR and original rukka from the DO room.
He went to the spot alongwith Ct Sahid which was Road No. 13, L
Pocket Bus Stand, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi. He met ASI Rajender Lal Aridaman
singh
cheema
Digitally signed by
Aridaman singh
cheema
FIR No. 284/2016 State v. Ravi & Anr. Page 7 of 19 Date: 2025.07.29
16:26:40 +0530
at the spot at around 02:15 AM. ASI Rajender Lal handed over
accused to him and the seized illicit liquor which were in eight white
coloured plastic kattas and another katta of the samples as well as
Santro car bearing number DL3CP9196 which was carriyng the illicit
liquor. He also handed over to him the seizure memo of the offending
vehicle and the illicit liquor and Form M-29. He prepared the site plan
at instance of ASI Rajender which is Ex-PW4/A. Thereafter ASI
Rajender was relieved from the spot. He interrogated accused Ravi
and arrested him vide arrest memo which is already Ex-PW3/A. His
personal search was conducted vide personal search memo which is
already Ex-PW3/B. His disclosure statement was recorded which is
already Ex-PW3/C. He investigated with respect to tracing the driver
namely Sagar who was driving the santro car at the time of incident.
However, he could not be found. Thereafter he alongwith Ct Shahid
and accused returned to the PS alongwith the case property. The case
property was deposited with MHCM at the PS. He got the medical
examination done of the accused and he was sent to lockup. He
recorded the statement U/S 161 CrPC of ASI Rajender Lal, Ct Pankaj
and Ct Shahid. He obtained the ownership details of the offending
santro car from Authority Sheikh Sarai and the ownership of the car
was found to be of Mohammad Mohsin. Thereafter the intimation of
vehicle and result of the sample were sent to Excise Laboratory.
Thereafter the result of the sample was obtained from Laboratory and
he handed over the case file to HC Brijpal. The case file was handed
over to him subsequently. Thereafter, he prepared the charge sheet
and filed the same in court. He could identify accused Ravi only. He
had not met accused Mohammad Mohsin during investigation and he
Aridaman
singh
cheema
FIR No. 284/2016 State v. Ravi & Anr. Page 8 of 19 Digitally signed by
Aridaman singh
cheema
Date: 2025.07.29
16:26:45 +0530
was interrogated by HC Brijpal. The accused person namely Ravi was
present in the court today and correctly identified by the witness.
In his cross-examination he stated that on that day he was on 24
hours duty. He received the information at around 02:00 AM. He
admitted that the recovery had already been effected before he
reached the stop. He admitted that the place of incident was a public
place. He admitted that no public person had been made witness to
the arrest. He also did not serve any written notice on public person to
join investigation. No photography or videography of proceedings
was done by him. He remained at the spot for one hour. No arrival
entry was lodged at the PS, when he reached with the case property.
He had lodged an entry when the accused was brought to the lockup
after MLC. He does not remember the DD Number. There was no seal
return handing over memo on record. He admitted that the seizure
memo was prepared prior to him reaching the spot. He denied the
suggestion that no case property was recovered from the accused. He
denied the suggestion that all the written documents were prepared at
the PS.
In his cross-examination he stated that he had verified the
ownership of the vehicle from STA/RTO. The RC of the vehicle was
valid till 02.02.2015. He admitted that on the date of incident, the RC
of the vehicle had expired. He denied the suggestion that he did not
get the Engine number and chasis number verified. He admitted that
there is no application on record in this regard. He denied the
suggestion that the RC of the vehicle had expired in 2015, accused
Mohsin had disposed off the vehicle in 2015 itself and the vehicle was
not in his control at the time of incident. He does not know the Aridaman
singh
cheema
FIR No. 284/2016 State v. Ravi & Anr. Page 9 of 19 Digitally signed by
Aridaman singh
cheema
Date: 2025.07.29
16:26:50 +0530
whereabout of the vehicle today. He could not produce the vehicle
that day. No separate seizure memo for the key or the vehicle and
number plate of the vehicle was prepared. He admitted that number
plate of a vehicle could be easily manipulated in 2016. He denied the
suggestion that he had not conducted proper investigation in the case.
9. PW-5 ASI Brijpal Malik, deposed that on 01.11.2018, deposed
that the investigation was marked to him. Thereafter, he made several
efforts to find-out the accused persons. During investigation, he
served notice u/s 41 Cr.PC to the owner of the car Mohd. Mohseen.
Thereafter, investigation of the present case was marked to ASI
Sharad Kumar.
In his cross-examination on behalf of both the accused he
denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
10. PW-6 HC Pankaj, deposed that on 11.06.2016, he was posted as
constable at in Excise Department L-Block Vikas Bhawan. On that
day around 01.30 AM as secret information pertaining to the illicit
liquor he went to L pocket Sarita Vihar. Where he met with police
official who apprehended the accused persons alongwith illicit liquor.
Thereafter he shared the information with police officials. Thereafter
his statement was recorded and he left the spot.
In his cross-examination on behalf of accused Mohseen on
11.06.2019, he received the secret information at about 10.30 PM. He
also inform to his higher officials telepathically. He stayed around one
hour on the spot.
Digitally
signed by
Aridaman
Aridaman singh
FIR No. 284/2016 State v. Ravi & Anr. Page 10 of 19 singh cheema
cheema Date:
2025.07.29
16:26:54
+0530
In his cross-examination on behalf of accused Ravi he denied
the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
11. The both the accused had admitted copy of FIR alongwith u/s
65-B of Indian Evidence Act (Ex.A1), Chemical Examiner Reports
SZD016486 (Ex.A2), vehicle particulars of Santro Car bearing no.
DL-3CP-9196 as mentioned in report provided by Transport
Authority, Sheik Sarai GNCT of Delhi (Ex.A3) u/s 294 Cr.PC.
Accordingly, witness mentioned at serial no. 5 to 8 were dropped
from the list of witnesses.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
12. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to
allow both the Accused to personally explain the incriminating
circumstances appearing in evidence against them, separate statement
of Accused were recorded separately without oath on 07.03.2025
under Section 313 CrPC in which they stated that they are innocent,
and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. They
further stated that they do not want to lead defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS
13. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State while
summing up prosecution case, 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.
Digitally
signed by
Aridaman
Aridaman singh
singh cheema
FIR No. 284/2016 State v. Ravi & Anr. Page 11 of 19 cheema Date:
2025.07.29
16:26:58
+0530
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused argued that
the accused has been falsely implicated by the police and nothing was
recovered from his possession. He has stated that prosecution
witnesses have admitted that IO did not serve any notice to public
persons. He has further stated that as per the testimony of PW-2, the
rukka was sent to the police station after the making of seizure memo
then how the FIR no. is mentioned on the seizure memo. He further
pointed out contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses
to argue that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable shadow of doubts. He prayed for acquittal of the accused.
15. I have carefully gone through all the records at hand and
testimony of the witnesses. After perusal, this court is of the opinion
that the point for determination in the present case is whether on
10.06.2016 at about 11:10PM at road No.13, Near L Pocket, Sarita
Vihar Flyover, New Delhi, accused Ravi was found in possession of
illicit liquor as mentioned in the seizure memo which was being
transported in vehicle bearing no. DL-3CP-9196 (Santro Car), which
was registered in the name of accused Mohd. Mohsin, in violation of
Rule 20 of Delhi Excise Rules, 2010.
16. As per the prosecution on the fateful day the accused was found
in possession of illicit liquor without any permit or license. In order to
bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution was
Digitally
signed by
Aridaman
Aridaman singh
FIR No. 284/2016 State v. Ravi & Anr. Page 12 of 19 singh cheema
cheema Date:
2025.07.29
16:27:03
+0530
required to prove beyond reasonable doubt the recovery of illicit
liquor from the possession of the accused.
17. Ld. APP for the state has relied upon Section 52 of the Delhi
Excise Act. As per Ld. APP for the state, as soon as the accused was
charged of commission of the offence punishable under Section 33 of
the Delhi Excise Act, a presumption in favour of the prosecution is
raised under Section 52 of the Delhi Excise Act. The said argument
does not find favour with this Court. Section 52 of the Delhi Excise
Act reads as under:
“Presumption as to commission of
offence in certain cases – (1) In
prosecution under Section 33, it shall be
presumed, until the contrary is proved,
that the accused person has committed
the offence punishable under that section
in respect of any intoxicant, still, utensil,
implement or apparatus, for the
possession of which he is unable to
account satisfactorily.
(2) Where any animal, vessel, cart or
other vehicle is used in the commission
of an offence under this Act, and is liable
to confiscation, the owner thereof shall
be deemed to be guilty of such offence
and such owner shall be liable to be
proceeded against and punished
accordingly, unless he satisfies the court
that he had exercised due care in the
prevention of the commission of such an
offence”.
Digitally
signed by
Aridaman
Aridaman singh
singh cheema
cheema Date:
2025.07.29
16:27:06
+0530
FIR No. 284/2016 State v. Ravi & Anr. Page 13 of 19
18. The words “for the possession of which he is unable to account
satisfactorily” used in Section 52(1) of the Delhi Excise Act stipulates
that as a pre-requisite for the presumption under the aforesaid
provision being raised against the accused, it is imperative for the
prosecution to successfully establish the recovery of the said alleged
articles from the possession of the accused. It is only after the
prosecution has proved the possession of the alleged articles by the
accused, that the accused can be called upon to account for the same.
However, for the reasons mentioned hereinafter the prosecution has
failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was
found in possession of the alleged illicit liquor. Accordingly, no
presumption as provided for under Section 52 of the Delhi Excise Act
can be raised against the accused in the present case.
19. At this stage, it is pertinent to point out that, there is not a
single public witness to the recovery of the liquor in the list of
witnesses. The recovery is alleged to have been effected at road
No.13, Near L Pocket, Sarita Vihar Flyover, New Delhi. The place of
recovery as per site plan, clearly located in an area where public
persons would be readily available. Thus, at the place and time of the
alleged recovery of illicit liquor, public persons would in all
likelihood have been present and available or have at least passed by
the spot.
20. It is pertinent to mention here that it has been held in case of
Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab 1997(3) Crime 55 the Hon’ble
Digitally
Punjab & Haryana High Court :- signed by
Aridaman
Aridaman singh
singh cheema
cheema Date:
FIR No. 284/2016 State v. Ravi & Anr. Page 14 of 19 2025.07.29
16:27:10
+0530
“In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution
to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts.
It is for the prosecution to travel the entire
distance from may have to must have. If the
prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks
credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to
go to the accused.”
As per chapter 22 rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules it is necessary to
record DD Entry of arrival and departure of the police official.
Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, is reproduced 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.
Note :- The term Police Station will include all places such as Police
Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained.
21. It is not the case of the prosecution that no public person was
present at or near the spot of arrest and recovery. Further, PW-2,
PW-3 and PW-4 have stated in their cross-examination, that there
were public persons at that time but no one joined the investigation.
Further, there is nothing on record to show that IO had served any
notice under Section 160 Cr.PC. upon the persons who refused to join
Aridaman
the investigation. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that any singh
cheema
Digitally signed
by Aridaman
singh cheema
FIR No. 284/2016 State v. Ravi & Anr. Page 15 of 19 Date: 2025.07.29
16:27:16 +0530
serious effort was made by IO to join public witnesses in the
proceedings. 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 the Cr.PC 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.
22. 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.
23. Further, as per the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the
sample of liquor and case property were sealed with the seal of RL.
Further, the seal in the present case was not handed over to any
independent witness. Thus, the possibility that the case property may
have been tampered with cannot be ruled out.
24. Moving ahead, PW-2 had deposed that seizure memo
Ex.PW-2/A was prepared before the rukka was sent to the police
station for registration of the FIR in his examination in chief. The FIR Digitally
signed by
Aridaman
Aridaman singh
singh cheema
cheema Date:
FIR No. 284/2016 State v. Ravi & Anr. Page 16 of 19 2025.07.29
16:27:22
+0530
was, therefore, admittedly registered after the preparation of seizure
memo Ex.PW-2/A. Accordingly, it follows that the number of the FIR
would have come to the knowledge of ASI Rajender Lal only after a
copy of the FIR was brought to the spot by Ct. Shahid. 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-2/A bears the FIR
number and case details. The same indicates that FIR number was
mentioned on the said document while preparing the same.
25. Reliance here is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High
Court of in Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri.L.J.
127 wherein it was observed in 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 Aridaman
singh
cheema
FIR No. 284/2016 State v. Ravi & Anr. Page 17 of 19 Digitally signed by
Aridaman singh
cheema
Date: 2025.07.29
16:27:26 +0530
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.”
26. 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 memo Ex.PW2/A. The same leads to inference that
either the said documents were prepared later or that the FIR had been
registered earlier in point of time. 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.
27. The facts that no independent witness was cited or examined,
the appearance of FIR number and case particulars on the seizure
memo Ex.PW2/A has not been explained, there is no DD entry
regarding the departure of the police officials, contradictions in the
testimony of prosecution witnesses and there is no public witness
present, when kept in juxtaposition to each other, cast a cloud of
suspicion over the prosecution version. In view of the aforesaid, the
Aridaman
singh
cheema
Digitally signed by
Aridaman singh
FIR No. 284/2016 State v. Ravi & Anr. Page 18 of 19 cheema
Date: 2025.07.29
16:27:30 +0530
possibility of false implication of the accused in the present case
cannot be ruled out.
28. 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.
29. 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 the
accused in the present case. The accused Accused Ravi is hereby
acquitted u/s 33/38 of Delhi Excise Act and 2) Accused Mohd.
Mohsin is hereby acquitted u/s 52(2) of Delhi Excise Act. .
Aridaman Digitally signed
Announced in open court on 29.07.2025 singh
by Aridaman
singh cheema
Date: 2025.07.29
cheema 16:27:34 +0530
(Aridaman Singh Cheema)
JMFC-05/SE District/Saket Court,
New Delhi/ 29.07.2025
Note: This judgment contains 19 pages and each page bears the
digital signature of the undersigned. Aridaman Digitally signed by
Aridaman singh cheema
singh Date: 2025.07.29
cheema 16:27:39 +0530
(Aridaman Singh Cheema)
JMFC-05/SE District/Saket Court,
New Delhi/29.07.2025
FIR No. 284/2016 State v. Ravi & Anr. Page 19 of 19