Delhi District Court
State vs Kadir on 18 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMAN KUMAR SHARMA, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-05, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW
DELHI
CNR No. DLST02-005821-2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
CR Cases 4664/2021
STATE Vs. KADIR
FIR no. 492/2020 (Mehrauli)
U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act
JUDGMENT
A) Sl. No. of the case : CR No. 4664/2021
B) The date of commission of : 25.07.2020
offence
C) The name of the complainant : HC Chandram, No. 3334/SD, PS
Mehrauli, New Delhi.
D) The name and address of accused : Kadir, S/o Sh. Sattar Nadaf, R/o
vagabond, Jhuggi, Opposite Lado
Sarai, CNG Pump, New Delhi.
E) Offence complained of : 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009.
F) The plea of accused : Not Guilty
G) Final Order : Acquittal
H) The date of such Order : 18.07.2025
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 20.03.2021
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 18.07.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 18.07.2025
FIR No.492/2020 PS Mehrauli Page No.1 of 15
Digitally signed
AMAN by AMAN
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.18
16:52:42 +0530
BRIEF FACTS
1. The present case has originated from the charge-sheet filed by the State
under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009, against accused namely Kadir, S/o
Sh. Sattar Nadaf. As per the charge-sheet, on 25.07.2020 at around 06.50 PM in
front of CNG Pump, Lado Sarai, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Mehrauli,
accused was found in possession of 74 quarter bottles each labelled with Asli
Santra Masaledar Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only 180 ml each as per seizure
memo without having any license and permit and thereby accused committed an
offence punishable under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act.
2. On the basis of the charge-sheet, the Court took cognizance of the offence on
20.03.2021 and on 21.12.2021, when the accused appeared before the court, he was
supplied with copy of chargesheet and documents in compliance of Section 207
Cr.P.C. Court framed the charge against the accused for offence punishable under
Section 33 of Delhi Excise Act. Charge was read over and explained to him to
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the following five
witnesses:
(i) PW1 was Sh. Rajender;
(ii) PW2 was HC Narender;
(iii) PW3 was HC Mahender Singh;
(iv) PW4 was HC Karan; and
FIR No.492/2020 PS Mehrauli Page No.2 of 15
Digitally signed
by AMAN
AMAN KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.07.18
16:52:47 +0530
(v) PW5 was HC Chandram.
4. PW-1 Sh. Rajender deposed that on 25.07.2020, he alongwith Ct. Karan and
Ct. Narender were on patrolling duty in the area. During the patrolling at around
6:50 PM, when they reached at near CNG pump, Lado Sarai, near the jhuggies,
they saw one person was seated beside the wall of the forest alongwith plastic katta.
Upon the suspicion, they went near to aforesaid person. At that time, the said
person had tried to go away from there, somehow they managed to apprehend him.
They inquired from him about the contents of the katta. He with the help of the
other police officials checked the katta and found two gatta peties. One petti was
containing 48 quarters and second peti was containing 26 quarters of illicit liquor of
brand Asli Santra Masaledar desi sharab, for sale in Haryana only, 180 ml each. Ct.
Karan had given the information to the local PS regarding the apprehension of the
aforesaid person and illicit liquor. From the PS, HC Mahender reached at the spot.
They handed over the custody of the apprehended person Kadir alongwith the
recovered illicit liquor to IO HC Mahender. IO recorded the complaint of the
complainant Ct. Karan and prepared the tehrir on the same at the spot. Ct. Karan
went to the PS along-with tehrir and got registered the present FIR.
5. PW-1 Sh. Rajender further deposed that Ct. Karan came back at the spot and
handed over the computerized copy of FIR and original tehrir to IO HC Mahender,
IO had taken out one quarter from each peti (total 2 samples) were taken out as a
sample and the remaining quarters were put in the same katta and sealed with the
seal of MK. IO prepared the seizure memo of the recovered illicit liquor vide memo
Ex.PW1/A. Seal after the use was handed over to me by the IO. IO prepared the
FIR No.492/2020 PS Mehrauli Page No.3 of 15
Digitally signed
by AMAN
AMAN KUMAR
SHARMA
KUMAR Date:
SHARMA 2025.07.18
16:52:51
+0530
arrest memo and personal search memo of the accused Kadir which are Ex.PW1/B
and Ex.PW1/C. At the spot, IO filled up M-29 form. They brought the case
property and accused to PS. IO recorded his statement. Accused was correctly
identified by the witness. PW1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
6. PW-2 HC Narender and PW-4 HC Karan deposed on the same lines as
deposed by PW1 Sh. Rajesh as they all were on patrolling duty. PW2 and PW4
were duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel.
7. PW-3 HC Mahender deposed that on 25.07.2020, he was posted as HC at PS
Mehrauli. On that day, he received an information vide DD No. 84A, at about 07:20
PM and after receiving the information, he went to the place of incident i.e. near
CNG pump, Lado Sarai where he met Ct. Karan, Ct. Rajender and Ct. Narender
who handed over him the custody of accused namely Kadir along-with the case
property and narrated him the whole incident. After that, he checked the Katta and
found 2 gatta petties containing 48 quarter bottles and 26 quarter bottles of illicit
liquor having label of Asil Santra Masaledar Desi Sarab for sale in Haryana only
180 ML each. Thereafter, he took two quarter bottle as a sample from both gatta
peties and gave serial no. A and B and rest of quarter bottles were put into the katta
and sealed with the seal of MK and gave serial no. 1. After using the seal, he
handed over the seal to Ct. Rajender and seized all the case property vide seizure
memo which is Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Ct. Karan
which is Ex.PW3/A and prepared rukka which is Ex.PW3/B and handed over the
same to Ct. Karan for registration of FIR.
FIR No.492/2020 PS Mehrauli Page No.4 of 15
Digitally signed
by AMAN
AMAN KUMAR
SHARMA
KUMAR Date:
SHARMA 2025.07.18
16:52:56
+0530
8. PW-3 HC Mahender further deposed that after the registration of FIR, he was
handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir and after that, he wrote down the
particulars of the FIR on the documents which were already prepared. Thereafter,
he prepared site plan which is Ex.PW3/C. During investigation, he filed form M29
and thereafter, he recorded the disclosure statement of accused which is
Ex.PW1/DX. After that, he arrested the accused vide arrest memo which is
Ex.PW1/B and made the personal search of the accused vide personal search memo
which is Ex.PW1/C. After completing all the formalities, they all police officials
along-with case property and accused came back at PS where he deposited the case
property into the malkhana along-with the seal after taking it back from Ct.
Rajender. In the meantime, he sent the accused to Hospital for medical examination
and after the same, he was put into the lockup. Thereafter, he recorded the
statement of concerned police officials u/s 161 Cr.P.C. During investigation, he sent
exhibit to FSL for examination. Thereafter, he got transferred and handed over the
file to MHCR. Accused present in the Court was correctly identified by the witness.
Witness has correctly identified the case property which is Ex.P-1(colly). PW-3 HC
Mahender was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
9. PW5 HC Chandram deposed that on 27.12.2020, he received the present case
file for investigation. During the course of investigation, he prepared the charge-
sheet and filed the same before the court. Cross-examination of PW5 HC
Chandram was recorded as nil despite opportunity given to Ld. Defence counsel.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED & FINAL ARGUMENTS
10. Upon conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under
FIR No.492/2020 PS Mehrauli Page No.5 of 15
Digitally signed
by AMAN
AMAN KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.07.18
16:53:01 +0530
Section 313 Cr.P.C. read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which all
incriminating material was put to him. Accused pleaded innocence and claimed to
have been falsely implicated. Despite opportunity, accused chose not to lead any
evidence in his defence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
COURT OBSERVATION
11. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that Section 33 Delhi Excise Act reads as
under:
“33. Penalty for unlawful import, export, transport, manufacture,
possession, sale, etc.
(1) Whoever, in contravention of provision of this Act or of any rule
or order made or notification issued or of any license, permit or pass,
granted 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 any 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 and with fine which shall not be less
than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to one lath rupees.
12. It is the case of prosecution that on 25.07.2020 at around 06.50 PM in front
of CNG Pump, Lado Sarai, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Mehrauli,
accused was found in possession of 74 quarter bottles each labelled with Asli
FIR No.492/2020 PS Mehrauli Page No.6 of 15
Digitally signed
by AMAN
AMAN KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.07.18
16:53:05 +0530
Santra Masaledar Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only 180 ml each as per seizure
memo without having any license and permit and thereby accused committed an
offence punishable under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act. Per contra, it is the
defence of accused that no public witness joined the proceedings. Also, it has been
argued that there is discrepancy in the depositions of prosecution witnesses.
13. To prove the alleged offence, the prosecution is first and foremost required to
prove the recovery of illicit liquor from the possession of accused. To prove the
said recovery, it is a mandate to comply provision of section 100 (4) of the Cr.PC.
The accused was nabbed from a residential property, but no public person has been
examined. Under these circumstances, there is absolute non-compliance of Section
100 Cr.PC Sub Sec (4) which specifically provides that whenever any search or
seizure is effected by an investigating officer, the latter before making search or
seizure shall join at least two independent respectable local inhabitants from the
same locality in which search is to be effected. The word used in sub-Sec (4) of Sec
100 is “shall” which makes it mandatory. An investigating officer is granted liberty
to join independent witnesses from other locality only when the witnesses from the
same locality are either not available or they refuse to become witness. It appears
that no sincere effort was made to join respectable witnesses from the same locality.
14. In this regard reliance is also being placed on the following judgments. In
case law reported as “Anoop Joshi Vs. State” 1992(2) C.C. Cases 314(HC), High
Court of Delhi had observed as under:
“18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should be
shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to joinFIR No.492/2020 PS Mehrauli Page No.7 of 15
AMAN Digitally signed
by AMAN KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.18
SHARMA 16:53:10 +0530
independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence that no such
sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops
were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to
join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the
appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the
raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against
such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of
law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in
investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC“.
15. In a case law reported as Roop Chand Vs. State of Haryana 1999 (1) C.L.R.
69, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:
“3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the evidence with their help. The recovery of illicit liquor was
effected from the possession of the petitioner during noon time and it
is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses
form the public were available and they were asked to join the
investigation. The explanation furnished by the prosecution is that the
independent witnesses were asked to join the investigation but they
refused to do so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity
between them and the petitioner”.
4. It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency
19.01.2013 should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery
of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in
such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In
the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were
available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate
themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire
confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses
examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the
persons contacted to join it is a very common excuse that the
witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police
officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody
to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the
Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the
law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused
to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have
proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The
FIR No.492/2020 PS Mehrauli Page No.8 of 15
Digitally signed
by AMAN
AMAN KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.07.18
16:53:17 +0530
failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the
explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an
afterthought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken
together make the prosecution case highly doubtful”.
16. Further, prosecution has failed to prove when several people from the resi-
dential locality were available, why the testimony of said witnesses were not
recorded. Not even a single notice was given to any public person to join the inves-
tigation. Under Section 100(8) Cr.P.C, refusal to be a witness can render such non
willing public witness liable for criminal prosecution. Despite the availability of
such a provision, no sincere attempts were made by the police to join witnesses in
the present case. Therefore, non compliance of the mandatory provisions of law,
even though public witnesses were easily available in the vicinity, makes the pro-
secution version highly doubtful.
17. As per the version of the prosecution witnesses, the case property, after
seizure, was sealed with the seal of “MK”. Further, as per record, after sealing the
case property and the samples of illicit liquor, the aforesaid seal was handed over to
Ct. Rajender. However, Ct. Rajender was a recovery witness and had apprehended
the accused and was subsequently, a part of the investigation in the present case.
Thus, the seal was not handed over to any independent witness. There is nothing on
record to suggest that IO had made efforts to handover the seal to any independent
witness. In such a factual backdrop, since the seal was given to Ct. Rajender, the
seal remained with the police officials of the same police station and therefore, the
possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out. Moreover, it is
FIR No.492/2020 PS Mehrauli Page No.9 of 15
Digitally signed by
AMAN AMAN KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.18
SHARMA 16:53:22 +0530
not even the case of the prosecution that the seal was not within the reach of the IO
and thus, there was no scope of tampering of case property.
18. In this regard, judgment in case titled as Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana
2007 (3) RCR (CRIMINAL) 452, may be adverted to, wherein it was observed in
paragraph 7 that:
“….The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person is to
avoid tampering of the case property. It is well settled that till the case
property is not dispatched to the forensic science laboratory, the seal
should not be available to the prosecuting agency and in the absence of
such a safeguard the possibility of seal, contraband and the samples
being tampered with cannot be ruled out. In the present case, the seal
of Investigating Officer-Hoshiar Singh bearing impression HS was
available with Maha Singh, a junior police official and that of Deputy
Superintendent of Police remained with Deputy Superintendent of
Police himself. Therefore, the possibility of tampering with seals as
well as seized contraband and samples cannot be ruled out.”
19. Similarly, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Safiullah v. State, (1993) 49 DLT
193, had observed:
“9. … The seal after use were kept by the police officials themselves
therefore the possibility of tempering with the contents of the seealed
parcel cannot be ruled out. It was very essential for the prosecution to
have established from stage to stage the fact that the sample was not
tempered with. The prosecution could have proved from the CFSL
form itself and from the road certificate as to what articles were taken
from the Malkahana. Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the
sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused…”….
20. Since the seal remained with the other members of the raiding party,
therefore, the possibility of interference or tempering of the seal and the contents of
the parcel cannot be ruled out. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, the
possibility of misuse of seal and tampering of case property cannot be ruled out.
FIR No.492/2020 PS Mehrauli Page No.10 of 15
Digitally signed
by AMAN
AMAN KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.07.18
16:53:26 +0530
21. It further needs to be appreciated that after preparing the rukka, HC Mahen-
der Singh had sent Ct. Karan for registration of FIR to the PS, however, admittedly
site plan Ex. PW3/C and seizure memo Ex. PW-1/A have been prepared prior to the
time of registration of FIR. It is, therefore, clear that the seizure memo of the liquor
and site plan 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 and site
plan reveal 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 would have come to
the knowledge of the investigating officer only after a copy of the FIR was brought
to the spot by Ct. Karan. Thus, ordinarily, the FIR number should not find mention
in the seizure memo and site plan, which came into existence before registration of
the FIR. However, interestingly, the seizure memo Ex. PW-1/A and site plan, Ex.
PW3/C bear the FIR number and case details in the same ink and the same hand-
writing 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
vs. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri. L.J. 127, wherein it was observed para-
graph 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, aFIR No.492/2020 PS Mehrauli Page No.11 of 15
Digitally
signed by
AMAN AMAN KUMAR
SHARMA
KUMAR Date:
SHARMA 2025.07.18
16:53:31
+0530
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. 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.”
23. In the instant case as well, no explanation has been furnished on record as to
FIR No.492/2020 PS Mehrauli Page No.12 of 15
Digitally signed
by AMAN
AMAN KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.07.18
16:53:36 +0530
how the FIR number and case details have appeared on the seizure memo Ex.
PW-3/A and site plan, Ex. PW4/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.
24. This Court is conscious of the legal position that non-joining of independent
witnesses cannot be the sole ground to discard or doubt the prosecution case, as has
been held in Appbhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. However,
evidence in every case is to be sifted through in light of the varied facts and cir-
cumstances of each individual case. As observed above, the testimony of the police
witnesses in the present case is not worthy of credit. In such a situation, evidence of
an independent witness would have rendered the much needed corroborative value,
to the otherwise uncompelling case of the prosecution, as discussed above, and
hereinafter.
25. Perusal of record shows that the Excise Result, Ex. A4 was obtained qua
samples of the case property seized only, and as per the same, the presence of alco-
hol/country made liquor in the said sample bottles stands confirmed. The presence
of alcohol in the remaining allegedly recovered liquor bottles has not been thus,
proved by the prosecution. It is not the case of IO that contents of all liquor bottles
were mixed, and a representative sample therefrom was drawn. Now, since the
State has only found one bottle of each brand (180 ml. of liquid), allegedly recov-
FIR No.492/2020 PS Mehrauli Page No.13 of 15
Digitally signed
by AMAN
AMAN KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.07.18
16:53:41 +0530
ered from the accused, containing alcohol, 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. At this juncture, the ruling of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, in its
judgment titled as Nagesh S/O Ningaiah vs The State Of Karnataka, Criminal Revi-
sion 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.”
26. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed
to be innocent unless the contrary is proved. The burden lies on the prosecution to
prove the guilt of accused “beyond reasonable doubt”. The prosecution is under a
legal obligation to prove every ingredient of offence beyond any doubt, unless
otherwise so provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts, it always
FIR No.492/2020 PS Mehrauli Page No.14 of 15
Digitally signed
by AMAN
AMAN KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.07.18
16:53:46 +0530
rests on the prosecution. (Daya Ram v. State of Haryana, (P&H)(DB), 1997(1)
R.C.R.(Criminal) 662).
27. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove the guilt of accused, the benefit of which accrues in his favour. Accused
namely Kadir, S/o Sh. Satar Nadaf is accordingly acquitted for the offence under
Section 33 Delhi Excise Act.
28. Let bail bonds / surety bonds be furnished by the accused under Section
437A, CrPC. AMAN Digitally signed
by AMAN KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.18
SHARMA 16:56:03 +0530
Announced in Open Court (AMAN KUMAR SHARMA)
on 18.07.2025 JMFC-05,South District/18.07.2025
Certified that this judgment contains 15 pages and bears my signatures at each
page.
AMAN Digitally signed
by AMAN
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.18
SHARMA 16:56:08 +0530
(AMAN KUMAR SHARMA)
JMFC-05,South District/18.07.2025
FIR No.492/2020 PS Mehrauli Page No.15 of 15