Delhi District Court
State vs Ravi Kumar on 18 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-03,
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS,NEW DELHI
Presided over by- Ms. Nidhi Singh, DJS
Cr. Case No. : 2041/2024
CNR No. : DLST020095852024
FIR No. : 283/2023
Police Station : Safdarjung Enclave
Section(s) : Section 33 Delhi Excise Act, 2009
In the matter of:
STATE
VERSUS
RAVI KUMAR
S/o Sh. Satish Kumar
R/o H. No. 46, Humayunpur Village, New Delhi
...... Accused
Offence Charged of Section 33 Delhi Excise Act, 2009
Plea of Accused Not Guilty
Date of commission of offence 07.10.2023
Date of registration of FIR 07.10.2023
Date of filing of chargesheet 19.03.2024
Date of Judgment 18.07.2025
Final Order ACQUITTAL
Digitally
signed by
NIDHI NIDHI
Date:
SINGH
SINGH 2025.07.18
17:00:15
+0530
State v Ravi Kumar FIR No. 283/2023 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 1 of 12
-:BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:-
1.
In brief, the story of the prosecution is that during beat patrolling and acting on
secret information, Ct. Sombir on 07.10.2023 at around 8:40 PM, near Khatta,
Hauz Khas Village, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Safdarjung Enclave
found accused/Ravi Kumar in possession of (43 quarters of Fresh Mota
Masaledar Desi Sharab/ For Sale In Haryana Only) without any license or permit
and same were accordingly seized. 1 quarter from the seized liquor was sent for
examination. On its basis, the present FIR bearing no. 283/2023 was registered at
PS Safdarjung Enclave against the accused/ Ravi Kumar.
2. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed u/s 173 Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) under Section 33 Delhi
Excise Act was filed and cognizance was taken. Copy of the charge sheet was
supplied to the accused in compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. After considering the record and hearing the arguments, charge u/s 33 of Delhi
Excise Act was framed against the accused Ravi Kumar on 10.12.2024 to which
the accused pleaded “not guilty” and claimed trial. The matter then was listed for
Prosecution Evidence (hereinafter referred to as, ‘PE’).
4. The accused admitted the genuineness of certain documents- the FIR 283/2023
(without contents, Ex. A-1), Certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act (without
contents, Ex. A-2), endorsement by duty officer (without contents, Ex. A-3) and
report of chemical examiner (without contents, Ex. A-4). Therefore formal
examination of the corresponding witnesses was dispensed with under section
294 Cr.P.C and the above said documents were directed to be read in evidence
without their formal proof.
Digitally
signed by
NIDHI NIDHI
Date:
SINGH
SINGH 2025.07.18
17:00:22
+0530State v Ravi Kumar FIR No. 283/2023 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 2 of 12
5. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence
against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt-:
Oral Evidence
HC Vijender Singh PW-1
Ct. Sombir PW-2
HC Pawan PW-3
Documentary Evidence
Seizure memo of illicit liquor Ex. PW2/A
Statement made by Ct. Sombir Ex. PW2/B
Disclosure statement of the accused Ex. PW2/D
Tehrir Ex. PW4/A
Site Plan Ex. PW2/C
Case Property Destruction Order Ex. P1
Sample of case property produced in Court Ex. P2
6. After examination of above cited witnesses, PE was closed vide order dated
25.03.2025.
7. To enable the accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances
appearing in evidence against him, statement of accused/ Ravi Kumar, without
oath, was recorded under Section 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. In reply, the accused
asserted his innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present
case at the behest of the investigating agency and recovery has been planted upon
him. He chose not to lead any evidence in his defence. Digitally signedNIDHI by NIDHI
SINGHSINGH Date:
2025.07.18
17:00:26 +0530State v Ravi Kumar FIR No. 283/2023 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 3 of 12
8. Short point for determination before this court is as under:
“Whether on 07.10.2023 around 8:40 PM, Near Khatta, Hauz Khas Village,
New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Safdarjung Enclave, the accused was
found in possession of illicit liquor (43 quarters of Fresh Mota Masaledar Desi
Sharab/ For Sale In Haryana Only) without any license or permit thereby
committing the offence punishable under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act ?”
9. Ld. APP submitted that the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt as the
witnesses have identified the case property and the accused during their deposition
and that testimonies of all 3 PWs have supported the main case. Ld. APP thus
prayed that the accused be convicted of the offence charged u/s 33 of the Delhi
Excise Act.
10. Per Contra, Ld. Legal Aid Defence Counsel for the accused has submitted that
the accused is completely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present
case and that the alleged recovery of the illicit liquor has been falsely planted
upon him. Ld. Counsel further submitted that not joining the public witnesses
despite availability and not serving any notice to them by the police officials casts
shadow of doubt on the story of prosecution, especially when they allegedly had
prior secret information. Further, that the seal was always in possession of the
raiding party and thus recovery cannot be duly proved and there is no seal handing
over memo. It was further argued that all the documents were prepared at the
police station at the behest of the local police. Ld. counsel finally submitted that
the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that,
therefore, the benefit of the same ought to be extended to the accused, and that the
accused is liable to be acquitted of the alleged offence.
11. Submissions heard. Record perused carefully.
Digitally
signed by
NIDHI
NIDHI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.18
17:00:30
+0530State v Ravi Kumar FIR No. 283/2023 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 4 of 12
12. In the present case the accused is charged under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise
Act. It is also significant to note that Section 52 of Delhi Excise Act presumes that
the accused has committed the offence under Section 33 of the Act, for the
possession of which the accused is unable to account for satisfactorily. However,
this presumption can be rebutted, if proved contrary. It is further to be noted that it
is the duty of prosecution to fulfil the initial requirement under Section 52 of the
Delhi Excise Act Act.
13. The recovery of the illicit liquor is alleged to have been effected on 07.10.2023 at
around 8:40 PM, Near Khatta, Hauz Khas Village, New Delhi, within the
jurisdiction of PS Safdarjung Enclave. The place of recovery and timing of arrest
is such that the presence of independent witnesses cannot be ruled out as the place
of recovery is clearly located in an area where public persons would be readily
available as it is a commercial as well as residential area. Further, the raiding party
has allegedly received prior information as well. The arrest and search of an
accused before an independent witness renders authenticity and creditworthiness
to the proceedings carried out by the police authorities. It also strengthens the
prosecution case against the accused. Moreover, it acts as a safeguard against the
arbitrary conduct or high handedness, if any, of the police officials. The absence
of such a safeguard in the form of a public witness is to be seen with suspicion.
All prosecution witnesses have admitted that the spot was a residential area and a
public place. All prosecution witnesses have admitted that there were multiple
public persons present. However, no public independent person was cited as a
witness in this case. No proof of any notice served upon them has been placed on
record. There is nothing in the testimony of prosecution witnesses that any sincere
efforts were made by the IO to join independent witnesses in the proceedings/
investigation.
Digitally
signed by
NIDHI NIDHI
Date:
SINGH
SINGH 2025.07.18
17:00:34
+0530State v Ravi Kumar FIR No. 283/2023 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 5 of 12
14. The aforesaid flaw in the investigation makes the story of the prosecution
unworthy of credit, specifically in the light of judgment in the case titled Anoop
Joshi v. State 1992 (2) C. C. Cases 314 (HC) wherein Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi observed:
“…It is repeatedly laid down by this court that in such cases it should be shown by the
police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the
present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made. People
could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being
made from the appellant. In case any of the people had declined to join the raiding
party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such people
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. Similarly, in Nanak Chand Vs. State of Delhi reported as DHC 1992 CRI LJ 55
it is observed as under:-
“…The recovery is proved by three police officials who have differed on who
snatched the Kirpan from the petitioner and at what time. The recovery was from
a street with houses on both sides and shops nearby. And, yet no witness from the
public has been produced. Not that in every case the police officials arc to be
treated as unworthy of reliance but their failure to join witnesses from the public
especially when they are available at their elbow, may, as in the present case,
cast doubt. They have again churned out a stereotyped version. Its rejection
needs no Napoleon on the Bridge at Arcola…”
16. Further, in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1872, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held as under:
Digitally
signed by
NIDHI
NIDHI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.18
17:00:37
+0530State v Ravi Kumar FIR No. 283/2023 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 6 of 12
“…It therefore emerges that non-compliance of these provisions i.e. Sections 100
and 165 CrPC would amount to an irregularity and the effect of the same on the
main case depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. of course, in
such a situation, the court has to consider whether any prejudice has been caused
to the accused and also examine the evidence in respect of search in the light of
the fact that these provisions have not been compiled with and further consider
whether the weight of evidence is in any manner affected because of the
non-compliance. It is well settled that the testimony of a witness is not to be
doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be an official but
as a rule of caution and depending upon the circumstances of the case, the courts
look for independent corroboration. This again depends on question whether the
official has deliberately failed to comply with these provisions or failure was due
to lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the
search and strictly comply with these provisions…”
17. The omissions / failure on the part of the investigating agency to join independent
public witnesses create reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and substantiates
the defence version that there is false implication of the accused in the present
case and that the recovery has been falsely planted upon the accused. Further,
considering facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of the ratio in
State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC, there was no lack of time and
opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly
comply with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused had
already been apprehended and it is not a case where the investigation required the
police to act in haste and to proceed to some other spot to apprehend other
accused/recover other case property. Admittedly, no written requisition was made
by the police to any public person to join the investigation. Even if the public
Digitally
signed by
NIDHI NIDHI
Date:
SINGH
SINGH 2025.07.18
17:00:41
+0530State v Ravi Kumar FIR No. 283/2023 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 7 of 12
persons refused to join the investigation, notice under section 160 CrPC ought to
have been served on them by IO to satisfy the burden that sincere efforts were
made to join public persons in the investigation. Based on the above, it is evident
that a mere bald explanation has been put forth by the police that public persons
were not joined due to paucity of time and hence, it is evident that no sincere
efforts were made to join independent witnesses.
18. However, at the same time, it is a settled position of law that the prosecution
version cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non- joining of
public witnesses. However, in the present case, it is not only the absence of public
witnesses which raises a doubt on the prosecution version but there are other
circumstances too, as discussed hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the
prosecution version.
19. As per evidence on record, the seal after use was not given to any independent
public person, and was in fact handed over to a police official posted in the same
police station at the relevant time and also a member of the raiding party.
However, there is nothing on record to show that the seal was deposited in
malkhana in order to allay any doubts of tampering. Admittedly, there is no seal
handing over memo on record. Thus, the possibility that the case property may
have been tampered with cannot be ruled out. Reliance in this regard is placed
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Abdul Ghaffar v. State
(Delhi Admn.), 1996 SCC OnLine Del 997:
“…7. What finally gives a burial to the prosecution version relates to safe custody
of the parcels. The Investigating Officer says that after the parcels had been
sealed, the seal was handed over to constable Satbir Singh (P.W. 4). I fail to see
any cogent justification for such an action. If Mohd. Mansoor had been joined as
Digitally
signed by
NIDHI NIDHI
Date:
SINGH
SINGH 2025.07.18
17:00:45
+0530State v Ravi Kumar FIR No. 283/2023 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 8 of 12
a public witness in the raiding party, there was no occasion for the Investigating
Officer to hand over his seal not to Mohd. Mansoor but to constable Satbir Singh.
This makes the whole affair look fishy. This is not all. The Investigating Officer
nowhere asserts that so long as the parcels remained in his custody they were not
tampered with. As if all this was not enough, even the Moharar Malkhana with
whom the case property remained deposited nowhere provides such assurance…”
20. Hence, considering the legal position, the benefit of doubt should be given to the
accused, as tampering with the case property in such a scenario cannot be ruled
out. The reliance is placed on the judgment of Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana
2007 (3) R.C.C. (Criminal) 452, wherein it is held that :
“…The very purpose of giving a 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…”
21. Similarly, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Safiullah v. State, 1993 (1) RCR
(Criminal) 622, held that :
“…The seals after use were kept by the police officials themselves. Therefore, the
possibility of tampering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out.
It essential for the prosecution to have established from stage to stage the fact that
the sample was not tampered with. Once a doubt is created in the preservation of
the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused…”
22. Further, Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, provides that 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
Digitally signed
NIDHI by NIDHI
SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.18
17:00:49 +0530State v Ravi Kumar FIR No. 283/2023 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 9 of 12
statement of the nature of their duty shall be entered vide a separate entry and this
entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer
concerned and shall be attested by the latter personality by signature or seal. In the
present case, all these departures or the arrival entries have not been proved on the
record by the prosecution and it has been admitted by all the witnesses in their
cross examination that there is no record of entries of their arrival and departure.
In absence of such proof, the presence of the police officials at the spot cannot be
fully believed. Reference in this regard can be made to Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987
(2) Crimes 29.
23. Further, in the present case, the seizure memo was prepared before registration of
FIR. However, the seizure memo mentions the FIR number on the same but there
is no explanation furnished by prosecution, as to how and under what
circumstances, the same has appeared. Multiple versions have been put forward
with respect to the same. Upon a Court question, the IO has submitted that the FIR
number was appended after registration of the FIR, however the same witness has
previously stated that there were no alterations to the seizure memo. The same
causes reasonable doubt in the prosecution story as held in the judgment of Giri
Raj Vs. State 83 (200) DELHI LAW TIMES 201, wherein the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi held in Para 5 as:
“…The prosecution has not offered any explanation whatsoever as to under what
circumstances a number of the FIR Ex.PW2/A had appeared on the top of the
said documents, which were allegedly on the spot before its registration. This
gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR (Ex.PW2/a) was recorded prior to
the alleged recovery of the contraband or the number of the said FIR was
inserted in these documents after its registration. In both the situation, it
seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a goodDigitally
signed by
NIDHI NIDHI
Date:
SINGH
SINGH 2025.07.18
17:00:58
+0530State v Ravi Kumar FIR No. 283/2023 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 10 of 12
deal of doubt about recovery of the contraband in the manner alleged by the
prosecution. That being so, the benefit arising out of such a situation must
necessarily go to the appellant…”.
The same view was adopted in the case of Mohd. Hashim. Appellant Vs. State
2000 CRIL.J. 15010 , Pawan Mewa Ram Vs. State 200 CRI.L.J.114 and Kumar
Vs. Delhi Administration, 1987 CCC 585.
24. Further the absence of photographs or videos, cast a serious doubt over the case of
the prosecution. In the present times where camera phones are abundant, no
reason is seen as to why no photographs or videos of the alleged incident could
not have been filed. No CCTV footage or photos of alleged recovery were filed
with the chargesheet. Moreover, in the case at hand multiple contradictions exist
which have been reflected from the cross examination of the witnesses above with
respect to the time of actual sending of rukka, distance of the spot from the
concerned PS, which further make the recovery as stated to be improbable.
25. In the present case, the evidence apparent on record is not sufficient for bringing
home the guilt of the accused and the prosecution story suffers from material
infirmities. Additionally, there are no public witnesses who have been joined in
the investigation of the present case and there are catena of judgments which
provide that whenever public witnesses are present, they should be joined. Any
passenger or public person could have easily been made a witness and this
omission of joinder of witnesses raises doubts. It is settled proposition of law that
when independent public persons are available at the spot and they are not joined
in the investigation by the investigating agency and unless and until any
reasonable and plausible explanation comes from the prosecution as to why the
independent public persons were not joined, the case of prosecution should be
seen with reasonable circumspection as it would be unsafe to believe the story of
NIDHI Digitally signed
by NIDHI SINGH
Date: 2025.07.18
SINGH 17:01:02 +0530
State v Ravi Kumar FIR No. 283/2023 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 11 of 12
the prosecution in absence of the independent public witnesses. (Sanspal Singh,
Vs. State of Delhi, SC 1999 Cr.L.J. 19).
26. In criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent, until proven
guilty, and the burden of proving the guilt of the accused solely rests upon the
prosecution by leading positive evidence. The accused is not expected to prove his
innocence to the hilt. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks
credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused. The guilt of
the accused is not to be proved by mere preponderance of probabilities but it has
to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the
entire distance from “may have” to “must have”. Suspicion, howsoever grave,
cannot take the place of proof.
27. Thus, in view of the foregoing analysis, this court is of the considered view that
the aforesaid deficiencies in the case of the prosecution are sufficient to raise a
doubt on the veracity of the entire prosecution case against the accused and the
benefit of doubt is extended to him. Prosecution has miserably failed in proving its
case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Ravi Kumar stands
acquitted of the offence under Section 33 of Delhi Excise Act in the present case.
Announced in open Court on this 18th day of July 2025.
This Judgment consists of 12 pages and each page bears my signature.
Digitally signed
NIDHI by NIDHI
SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.18
17:01:06 +0530(NIDHI SINGH)
JMFC-03, South District,
Saket Courts,Delhi
18.07.2025State v Ravi Kumar FIR No. 283/2023 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 12 of 12