Delhi District Court
State vs Shanti on 29 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARIDAMAN SINGH CHEEMA,
JMFC-05, SED, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
DLSE020563112024
Cr. Case No. -: 42189/2024
FIR No. -: 108/2024
Police Station -: Sarita Vihar
Section(s) -: 33 Delhi Excise Act
STATE
VS.
SHANTI
1. Name of Complainant :- Ct. Jahid Khan
2. Name of Accused Person :- Shanti W/o Lt. Sh.
Hetram
3. Offence complained of or proved :- 33 Delhi Excise Act
4. Plea of Accused :- Not guilty
5. Date of Commission of offence :- 24.03.2024
6. Date of Filing of case :- 27.09.2024
7. Date of Reserving Order :- 29.07.2025
8. Date of Pronouncement :- 29.07.2025
9. Final Order :- Acquitted
Aridaman
singh
cheema
Digitally signed
FIR No. 108/2024 State v. Shanti Page 1 of 17 by Aridaman
singh cheema
Date: 2025.07.26
16:44:43 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 24.03.2024 at
04:30PM near Lady Fatima Church, Jasola Village, New Delhi,
accused was found in possession of illicit liquor containing 90
quarters bottles having label of “ADS Fresh Motta Masaledar Deshi
Sharab” 180 ML for sale in Haryana only as per seizure memo Mark
‘A’.
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 and chargesheet was presented in the court
u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act on 27.09.2024.
3. On the appearance of accused, a copy of chargesheet was
supplied to them in terms of section 207 of CrPC. On finding a prima
facie case against the Accused, charge under Section 33 Delhi Excise
Act was framed against the Accused on 03.04.2025 for which the
Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial for the offence u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act,
prosecution led the following documentary and oral evidence:
Aridaman
singh
cheemaFIR No. 108/2024 State v. Shanti Page 2 of 17 Digitally signed
by Aridaman
singh cheema
Date: 2025.07.26
16:44:48 +0530
5. PW-1 Ct. Jahid Khan, he deposed that on 24.03.2024, he was
posted as Constable at PS Sarita Vihar. On that day, he was on beat
patrolling duty. At about 04:10PM, he reached Shahin Bagh Pulia,
where he met a secret informer who informed him that one lady was
sellling illicit liquor near slum area close to Lady Fatima Church
Jasola. He then went alongwith the secret informer. On the road side,
he saw one lady with one white plastic katta and was selling liquor.
He then went to her and inquired. He saw that she was selling ADS
Fresh Mota Masaledar Sharab for sale in Haryana only. He then
called DO at PS on which HC Netanand arrived at the spot alognwith
W/HC Rameshwari and he informed him about the fact. He recorded
PW-1’s statement which is Ex.PW1/A. IO then prepared a Tehrir and
handed over the same to PW-1 to get the FIR registered. After getting
the FIR registered he came back to the spot at about 06:45Pm. IO
then seized the illicit liquor vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B and sealed
with the seal of NJ. There were 90 quarter bottles out of which one
was taken out as a sample and remaining were sealed in the plastic
katta with the seal separately. He also recorded the disclosure
statement of the accused and served notice upon her. The disclosure
statement is Ex.PW1/C. IO then prepared form M-29 and the site
plan which is Ex.PW1/D. MHCM had produced the case property
bearing the seal of NJ. The seal was broken with the permission of
the court and illicit liquor is taken out. Same was correctly identified
by the witness. The case property is Ex.MO1 (colly).
In his cross-examination he stated that he does not remember
the DD number with regard to his departure from the PS. He did not Aridaman
singh
write down the information shared by secret informer. IO had cheema
Digitally signed by
Aridaman singh
cheema
FIR No. 108/2024 State v. Shanti Page 3 of 17 Date: 2025.07.26
16:44:53 +0530
requested 3/4 public persons to join the investigation. However,
nobody agreed. IO did not serve any notice to them on their refusal.
He admitted that IO did not prepare any videography or photograph
of the proceedings. He admitted that the place of the incident is a
residential area. He denied the suggestion that all the written
documents were prepared at the PS and that is the reason why no
public persons were made witnesses to the same. IO did not join any
public witness during the recovery proceedings. IO prepared the
seizure memo at the spot and no alteration or addition was made after
the same was prepared in his presence. He denied the suggestion that
the case property was planted against the accused.
6. PW-2 HC Netanand, he deposed that on 24.03.2024, he was
posted as HC at PS Sarita Vihar. On that day, he was on emergency
duty. At about 04:45PM, he reached alongwith W/HC Rameshwari
near Lady Fatima Church Jasola where he met Ct. Jahid Khan who
informed him about the illicit liquor being sold by one lady who
revealed her name as Shanti. She was selling illicit liquor on the road
side. He recorded statement of Ct. Jahid Khan which is already
Ex.PW1/A and prepared a Tehrir same is Ex.PW2/A and handed over
the same to Ct. Jahid to get the FIR registered. After getting the FIR
registered he came back to the spot at about 06:45Pm. He then seized
the illicit liquor vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/B and sealed
with the seal of NJ. There were 90 quarter bottles out of which one
was taken out as a sample and remaining were sealed in the plastic
katta with the seal separately. He also recorded the disclosure
Aridaman
statement of the accused and served notice upon her, the same is singh
cheema
Digitally signed by
Aridaman singh
cheema
FIR No. 108/2024 State v. Shanti Page 4 of 17 Date: 2025.07.26
16:44:59 +0530
Ex.PW2/B. He handed over the same to Ct. Jahid and prepared the
seal handing over memo, same is Ex.PW2/C. The disclosure
statement is already Ex.PW1/C. He then prepared form M-29 which
is Ex.PW2/D and the site plan which is already Ex.PW1/D. He
deposited the case property in Malkhana and sent the sample to
excise laboratory. Later on he also collected the report and placed it
on record. After the completion of investigation. He prepared the
chargesheet and filed it before the court.
In his cross-examination he stated that he does not remember
the DD number with regard to his departure from the PS. 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 admitted that he did not prepare any videograph or photograph of
the proceedings. He admitted that the place of the incident is a
residential area. He denied the suggestion that all the written
documents were prepared at the PS and that is the reason why no
public persons were made witnesses to the same. He did not join any
public witness during the recovery proceedings. He prepared the
seizure memo at the spot and no alteration or addition was made after
the same was prepared in his presence. He denied the suggestion that
the case property was planted against the accused.
7. PW-3 W/HC Rameshwari, she deposed that on 24.03.2024, she
was posted as HC at PS Sarita Vihar. On that day, she was present in
the PS. At about 04:45PM, she reached alongwith the IO/HC
Nityanand near Lady Fatima Church Jasola where they met Ct. Jahid
Aridaman
Khan who informed them about the illicit liquor being sold by one singh
cheema
Digitally signed by
Aridaman singh
FIR No. 108/2024 State v. Shanti Page 5 of 17 cheema
Date: 2025.07.26
16:45:03 +0530
lady who revealed her name as Shanti. She was selling illicit liquor
on the road side. IO recorded statement of Ct. Jahid Khan which is
already Ex.PW1/A and prepared a Tehrir same is already Ex.PW2/A
and handed over the same to Ct. Jahid to get the FIR registered. After
getting the FIR registered he came back to the spot at about 06:45Pm.
IO then seized the illicit liquor vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/B
and sealed with the seal of NJ. There were 90 quarter bottles out of
which one was taken out as a sample and remaining were sealed in
the plastic katta with the seal separately. IO also recorded the
disclosure statement of the accused and served notice upon her, the
same is already Ex.PW2/B. IO handed over the same to Ct. Jahid and
prepared the seal handing over memo, same is already Ex.PW2/C. IO
then prepared form M-29 which is already Ex.PW2/D and the site
plan which is already Ex.PW1/D. IO deposited the case property in
Malkhana and sent the sample to excise laboratory.
In her cross-examination she stated that she does not remember
the DD number with regard to her departure from the PS. IO had
requested 5/6 public persons to join the investigation. However,
nobody agreed. IO did not serve any notice to them on their refusal.
She admitted that IO did not prepare any videography or photograph
of the proceedings. She admitted that the place of the incident is a
residential area. The case property was brought to the PS on a private
car. She does not remember the registration no. of that car. She
denied the suggestion that all the written documents were prepared at
the PS and that is the reason why no public persons were made
witnesses to the same. IO did not join any public witness during the Aridaman
singh
recovery proceedings. IO prepared the seizure memo at the spot and cheema
Digitally signed
by Aridaman
singh cheema
FIR No. 108/2024 State v. Shanti Page 6 of 17
Date:
2025.07.26
16:45:08 +0530
no alteration or addition was made after the same was prepared in her
presence. She denied the suggestion that the case property was
planted against the accused.
8. The accused had admitted FIR No. 108/2024 (Sarita Vihar) as
Ex.A1, certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act (Ex.A3),
Endorsement on rukka (Ex.A2), DD No. 038 Dt. 24.03.2024 & DD.
No. 050A Dt.24.03.2024 (Ex.A4 & Ex.A5), road certificate no.
54/21/24 Dt. 05.04.2024 (Ex.A6) and Excise result Dt. 23.07.2024
(Ex.A7) without prejudice to his defence u/s 294 Cr.PC., the
witnesses mentioned at Sr. No. 2, 5, 6 and 7 were dropped from the
list of witnesses.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
9. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to
allow the Accused to personally explain the incriminating
circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of
Accused was recorded without oath on 29.07.2025 under Section 313
CrPC in which she stated that she is innocent, and she has been
falsely implicated in the present case. She further stated that she had
no knowledge of alleged recovery of liquor and same has been
planted. She further stated that he does not want to lead any defence
evidence. Hence, DE was closed.
ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS
10. Learned Substitute Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State
Aridaman
singh
while summing up prosecution case, submitted that the accused as cheema
Digitally signed by
Aridaman singh
cheema
FIR No. 108/2024 State v. Shanti Page 7 of 17 Date: 2025.07.26
16:45:13 +0530
well as the case property have been correctly identified by the
witnesses. She stated that link evidence is also available. She urged
that the case has been proved beyond doubt against the accused and
prayed for conviction of the accused.
11. 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-1, 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.
12. 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
24.03.2024 at 04:30PM near Lady Fatima Church, Jasola Village,
New Delhi, accused was found in possession of illicit liquor
containing 90 quarters bottles having label of “ADS Fresh Motta
Masaledar Deshi Sharab” 180 ML for sale in Haryana only as per
seizure memo Mark ‘A’. Aridaman
singh
cheema
Digitally signed by
Aridaman singh
cheema
Date: 2025.07.26
16:45:18 +0530
FIR No. 108/2024 State v. Shanti Page 8 of 17
13. 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 required to prove beyond reasonable doubt the recovery of illicit
liquor from the possession of the accused.
14. 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 Aridaman
accordingly, unless he satisfies the court singh
cheema
Digitally signed
by Aridaman
singh cheema
FIR No. 108/2024 State v. Shanti Page 9 of 17 Date: 2025.07.26
16:45:23 +0530
that he had exercised due care in the
prevention of the commission of such an
offence”.
15. 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.
16. 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 near Lady
Fatima Church, Jasola Village, 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.
Aridaman
singh
cheema
Digitally signed by
Aridaman singh
FIR No. 108/2024 State v. Shanti Page 10 of 17 cheema
Date: 2025.07.26
16:45:27 +0530
17. 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-1,
PW-2 and PW-3 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
the investigation. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that any
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.
18. 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.
Aridaman
singh
cheema
Digitally signed
by Aridaman
singh cheema
Date: 2025.07.26
FIR No. 108/2024 State v. Shanti Page 11 of 17 16:45:32 +0530
19. Further, as per the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the
sample of liquor and case property were sealed with the seal of NJ.
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.
20. Moving ahead, PW-1 had deposed that seizure memo Ex.
PW-1/B was prepared before the rukka was sent to the police station
for registration of the FIR in his examination in chief. The FIR was,
therefore, admittedly registered after the preparation of seizure memo
Ex.PW-1/B. Accordingly, it follows that the number of the FIR would
have come to the knowledge of HC Netanand only after a copy of the
FIR was brought to the spot by Ct. Jahid. 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/B bears the FIR number and case details.
The same indicates that FIR number was mentioned on the said
document while preparing the same.
21. 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, Aridaman
singh
cheema
Digitally signed
by Aridaman
singh cheema
FIR No. 108/2024 State v. Shanti Page 12 of 17 Date: 2025.07.26
16:45:38 +0530
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.”
22. 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
Punjab & Haryana High Court :-
“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 Aridaman
singh
cheema
FIR No. 108/2024 State v. Shanti Page 13 of 17 Digitally signed by
Aridaman singh
cheema
Date: 2025.07.26
16:45:42 +0530
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.
23. Perusal of record shows that the Excise Result, Ex.A7, was
obtained qua 1 sample bottle (180 ml) only, whereby the presence of
alcohol in the said sample bottles was confirmed. The presence of
alcohol in the remaining allegedly recovered liquor bottles has not
been thus, proved by the prosecution. Now, since the State has only
found 1 bottle (180ml. of liquid), allegedly recovered from the
accused containing alcohol, 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. At this juncture, the ruling of the
Aridaman
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, in its judgment titled as Nagesh singh
cheema
Digitally signed
by Aridaman
FIR No. 108/2024 State v. Shanti Page 14 of 17 singh cheema
Date: 2025.07.26
16:45:48 +0530
S/O Ningaiah vs The State Of Karnataka, Criminal Revision Petition
No.772 /2009, decided on 31 January, 2014 , maybe adverted to,
wherein, while acquitting the accused of a similar offence, following
observations were made:
“It is seen from the mahazar that out of
49,440 Whisky bottles, 15 Whisky bottles
of 180 ml. each were sent for Chemical
Analysis, and it is opined that there was
presence of Ethyl Alcohol in all the bottles
that were sent for Chemical Examination, fit
for consumption. Thus, the total quantity
sent for Chemical Analysis is less than
permitted quantity under law. We do not
know the contents of the other bottles seized
under a Panchanama. There is no evidence
to show that all other bottles also contained
alcohol. When the quantity found in the
bottle sent for Chemical Examination is less
than permitted limit and when there is no
evidence regarding the contents of all other
bottles seized under Panchanama, it cannot
be said that the accused was in possession
of the illicit liquor without pass or permit
more than permitted quantity so as to
constitute an offence. The unreported
decision of this Court in
W.P.No.17991/2011 (Excise), dated
28.02.2012, relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is rightly
applicable to the facts of this case………In
this case also the prosecution has failed to
establish that the accused was in possession
of liquor more than permitted quantity.”
24. In the instant case as well, no explanation has been furnished
on record as to how the FIR number and case details have appeared
Aridaman
on the seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. The same leads to inference that singh
cheema
Digitally signed by
Aridaman singh
cheema
FIR No. 108/2024 State v. Shanti Page 15 of 17 Date: 2025.07.26
16:45:54 +0530
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.
25. The facts that no independent witness was cited or examined,
the appearance of FIR number and case particulars on the seizure
memo Ex.PW1/B has not been explained, there is no DD entry
regarding the departure of the police officials and the amount of
proved quantity of alcohol is 180 ml (1 sample of 180 ml) which is
not an illegal amount and 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 possibility of false
implication of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out.
26. 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.
Aridaman
singh
cheema
Digitally signed by
Aridaman singh
cheema
Date: 2025.07.26
FIR No. 108/2024 State v. Shanti Page 16 of 17 16:45:58 +0530
27. 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 are entitled to be exonerated of the charges against
the accused in the present case. The accused Shanti W/o Lt. Sh.
Hetram is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section
33 Delhi Excise Act. Digitally
signed by
Aridaman Aridaman
singh cheema
singh
Announced in open court on 29.07.2025 cheema
Date:
2025.07.26
16:46:02
+0530(Aridaman Singh Cheema)
JMFC-05/SE District/Saket Court,
New Delhi/29.07.2025
Note: This judgment contains 17 pages and each page bears the
Aridaman Digitally signed
digital signature of the undersigned. singh
by Aridaman
singh cheema
Date: 2025.07.26
cheema 16:46:07 +0530(Aridaman Singh Cheema)
JMFC-05/SE District/Saket Court,
New Delhi/ 29.07.2025FIR No. 108/2024 State v. Shanti Page 17 of 17