Delhi District Court
State vs Santosh on 28 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF RISHABH KAPOOR, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -05 SOUTH WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
Digitally
signed by
RISHABH
RISHABH KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.06.28
15:34:12
+0530
State Vs. : Santosh
FIR No : 795/2020
U/s : 33 Delhi Excise Act
P.S. : Vikas Puri
JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Case No. : 8171/21
2. Date of commission of offence : 27.12.2020
3. Date of institution of the case : 31.07.2021
4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name and parentage of accused : Santosh
W/o Sh. Nemi Chand
6. Offense complained or proved : Section 33 Delhi Excise
Act
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 22.05.2025 9. Final order : Acquitted 10. Date of final order : 28.06.2025 State Vs.: Santosh FIR No : 795/2020 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 1
1. The accused is facing trial for offence u/s 33 Delhi Excise
Act. The genesis of the prosecution story is that on 27.12.2020
at about 9:55 PM near Jhuggi, Indira Camp no. 5, Vikas Puri,
Delhi, the accused was found in possession of one plastic katta
containing 144 quarter bottles liquor make “Asli Masaledar
Santra Deshi Sharab for sale in Haryana only”, without any
license or permit or authority. The criminal law was set into
motion by registration of FIR against the accused and
investigation into the case began. After completion of the
investigation, the present charge-sheet was filed for conducting
trial of the accused for the alleged offences.
2. After taking cognizance of the offences, the copy of
charge-sheet was supplied to accused in compliance of section
207 Cr.P.C. The arguments on charges were heard and charge
for offence u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act was framed against
accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed and trial.
Thereafter, prosecution evidence was led.
3. In order to prove allegations against accused,
prosecution has examined five prosecution witnesses.
4. The proceedings u/s 294 Cr.P.C. were conducted
wherein accused admitted fact of recording FIR (Ex.AD-1),
Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act (Ex. AD-2), GD no. 93A
dated 24.12.2020 (Ex. AD3), GD no. 7A dated 25.12.2020 (Ex.
AD-4) and Excise Report (Ex.AD-5). Pursuant to the admission
made by accused of these documents, witnesses at Sr. No.3
and 5 were dropped from the list of witness.
State Vs.: Santosh FIR No : 795/2020 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 2
5. Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution
witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their
testimony has remained unrebutted. It has been further argued
that on the combined reading of the testimony of all the
prosecution witnesses, offence u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act has
been proved beyond doubt.
6. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has stated that there
is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused and that
the accused has been falsely implicated by the police officials
and the recovery of illicit liquor has been planted upon her.
Arguing further, Ld. counsel has inter-alia submitted that no
public witnesses were joined by the police officials during
investigation and no recovery photographs were also taken on
record by the investigating officer. It is further argued that due
to the lacunae and incoherency in the story of the prosecution,
accused be given the benefit of doubt and is therefore, entitled
to be acquitted.
7. Prior to delving into the contentions raised by the
prosecution and defence, let us discuss the testimonies of the
material prosecution witnesses in brief.
PW-1 HC Nahar Singh deposed that on 24.12.2020 at
around 9:45 PM, while he along with Ct. Rooop Singh and Ct.
Sunita was on patrolling duty near Kamal Public school Indira
Camp no. 5, he met a secret informer, who informed that one
lady was selling illicit liquor in Jhuggi at Indira Camp no. 5.
Thereafter, he constituted raiding party comprising himself, Ct.
State Vs.: Santosh FIR No : 795/2020 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 3
Roop Singh and W/Ct Sumita . He further deposed that some
public persons were also asked to join the proceeding but they
did not agree and went away without disclosing their names
and addresses. He further deposed that thereafter, he along
with Ct Roop Singh and Ct. Sumita went to the spot i.e. in front
of Jhuggi no. WZ-120/209, Indira Camp no. 5, Vikas Puri where
one lady was present along with plastic katta and on seeing
them, she tried to go inside the jhuggie. Thereafter, said lady
was apprehended on the basis of suspicion and her name was
disclosed as accused Santosh. He further deposed that on
checking the said katta, it found containing 144 quarter bottles
of liquor make “Asli Santra Masaledar Deshi Sharab for Sale in
Haryana only”. He further deposed that one bottle was
separated as sample by him and the liquor was duly sealed with
seal of NS which was handed over to Ct. Roop Singh after its
use. Thereafter, said PW further deposed with respect to the
investigation carried out by him in the present case. Through
him, rukka was exhibited as Ex. PW 1/A, seizure memo as Ex.
PW 1/B, seal handing over memo as Ex. PW 1/C, Form M-29
as Ex PW 1/D, site plan as Ex. PW 1/E, bound down memo of
accused as Ex. PW 1/E1, arrest memo Ex. PW 1/F and
disclosure statement of accused as Ex. PW 1/G. He correctly
identified the accused and case property in the Court. During
his cross examination, he admitted that public persons were
passing through the spot at the time of recovery and he did not
give the notice to the public persons.
State Vs.: Santosh FIR No : 795/2020 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 4
PW-2 HC Roop Singh and PW-3 W/Ct Sumita are the
other members of the police patrolling team which allegedly
apprehended the accused with the illicit liquor. They also
deposed on same lines as that of PW-1 and hence, their entire
testimony is not been reproduced to avoid repetition. During
their cross examination, they also admitted that public persons
were passing through the spot at the time of recovery and IO
did not give the notice to the public persons.
PW-4 Ct Manisha deposed that on 25.12.2020, she
joined the investigation of the case and on the instructions of
the IO, she took the accused to DDU Hospital for her medical
examination.
PW-5 HC Prahlad was the MHC(M) who deposed that on
24.12.2020, the case property was deposited in Malkhana by
HC Nahar Singh vide entry in Register no. 19 which is Ex. PW
5/A. He also produced the road certificate with respect to
sending the sample of the case property to Excise Lab ITO
which is Ex. PW 5/B.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.:
8. Statement of the accused u/s Section 313 Cr.P.C. was
recorded separately in which all the incriminating circumstances
appearing in evidence were put to her. The accused
controverted and denied the allegations levelled against her
and stated that she has been falsely implicated in the case.
State Vs.: Santosh FIR No : 795/2020 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 5
Accused further opted not to lead evidence in her defence,
hence, DE was closed.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:
9. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions made by both the parties. Accused Santosh has
been indicted for the offence u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act.
10. In order to prove the offence under Section 33 of the
Delhi Excise Act, the prosecution must establish the fulfilment
of all the essential ingredients of the offence. The contents of
Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act are reproduced as follows:
“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
licence, 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 anyState Vs.: Santosh FIR No : 795/2020 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 6
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.”
It is also significant to note that Section 52 of Delhi Excise
Act lays down a rebuttable presumption which goes as follows:
“Section 52. 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. ………”
11. It is a trite law that the burden always lies upon the
prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the
basis of acceptable evidence and that the law does not permit
the court to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction
or on account of suspicion alone. Also, it is well settled that
accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in
the prosecution story and such doubt entitles him to acquittal.
The words “for the possession of which he is unable to account
satisfactorily” used in Section 52(1) of the Delhi Excise Act
State Vs.: Santosh FIR No : 795/2020 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 7
clearly reveal 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,
as discussed hereinafter, careful scrutiny of the evidence
placed on record brings to light the fact that the case of the
prosecution is fraught with multiple inconsistencies, rendering
the prosecution version incredible, owing to which, no
presumption, as provided for under Section 52 of the Act, can
be raised against the accused in the present case.
i). Doubtful Seizure Memo and Form M-29.
12. A careful reading of the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and
PW-3 reflects that the IO HC Nahar Singh had seized the illicit
liquor vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B and filled in the Form M-
29 Ex. PW1/D, both at the spot and thereafter, had prepared
the rukka Ex. PW1/A and handed over the same to Ct. Roop
Singh for registration of FIR. The narration of such a chronology
of events leads to the irresistible conclusion that the seizure
memo of the liquor and Form M-29 were prepared at the spot
prior to the rukka being sent to the police station for registration
of the FIR and that the FIR was, therefore, admittedly registered
after the preparation of these documents. Accordingly, it follows
that the number of the FIR would have come to the knowledge
State Vs.: Santosh FIR No : 795/2020 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 8
of the investigating officer only after a copy of the FIR was
brought to the spot by Ct. Roop Singh. Thus, ordinarily, the FIR
number should not find mention in the seizure memo and Form
M-29, both of which documents came into existence before
registration of the FIR. However, quite surprisingly, perusal of
seizure memo and Form M-29 reflects the mentioning of the full
particulars of the FIR thereupon, which fact has remained
unexplained on behalf of the prosecution. It is not even the case
that the same, on the face of it, appears to have been written in
separate ink or at some left over space. Rather, on the seizure
memo, it appears to have been recorded in same continuity,
handwriting and ink as rest of the contents of these documents.
No explanation from the prosecution is forthcoming as to how
the FIR number surfaced on a document which was prepared
prior to the registration of the FIR. This fact casts a fatal doubt
upon the case of prosecution.
13. At this stage, reference may be made to the decision of
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Lalit v. The Delhi
Administration, 1989 Cri. L.J. 127, wherein it was observed in
paragraph 5 as follows:
“….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, PW 11/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 toState Vs.: Santosh FIR No : 795/2020 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 9
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.”
14. Similarly, in paragraph 4 of Mohd. Hashim vs State, 82
(1999) DLT 375, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi observed:
“…Surprisingly, the secret information (Ex. P.W. 7/A)
received by the Sub-Inspector Narender Kumar Tyagi (P.W. 7),
the notice under S. 50 of the Act (Ex. P.W. 5/A) alleged to have
been served on the appellant, the seizure memo (Ex. P.W. 1/A)
and the report submitted under S. 57 of the Act (Ex. P.W. 7/D)
bear the number of the FIR (Ex. P.W. 4/B). The number of the
FIR (Ex. P.W. 4/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 circumstances number of the FIR (Ex. P.W. 4/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. P.W. 4/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.”
State Vs.: Santosh FIR No : 795/2020 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 10
15. The aforesaid rulings of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
squarely apply to the facts in the present case as well, which
leads to only one of the either inference, that is, either the FIR
was registered prior to the alleged recovery of the illicit liquor, or
that the said documents were prepared later in point of time. In
either of the scenarios, a dent is created in the version of the
prosecution, the benefit of which must accrue to the accused.
ii). The non-joining of any independent / public witness.
16. It is evident from the record that no public witnesses to
the recovery of the liquor have been either cited in the list of
prosecution witnesses or have been examined by the
prosecution. It was admitted by PWs HC Roop Singh and W/HC
Sumita that the public persons were available near the spot of
occurrence. Apparently, IO/HC Nahar Singh had also admitted
that spot of occurrence is a busy public road and public persons
were present nearby but no explanation has come from IO as to
why he did not join any public persons during the proceedings
despite their availability. Admittedly, no notice was served to
such public persons upon their refusal to join investigation in
the case. Thus, it is not the case of prosecution that public
witnesses were not available at the spot. However, from a
perusal of the record, no serious efforts for joining public
witnesses appears to have been made by the investigating
officer. These facts are squarely covered by the ruling of the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as, Anoop Joshi
State Vs.: Santosh FIR No : 795/2020 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 11
Vs. State” 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), wherein it was
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 join 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.”
17. Further, in a case law reported as Roop Chand v. The
State of Haryana, 1999 (1) C.L.R. 69, Hon’ble Punjab &
Haryana High Court held as under:
“……..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
from 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.
18. It is well settled principle of the law that the investigating
agency 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.
State Vs.: Santosh FIR No : 795/2020 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 12
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 IO must have
proceeded against them under the relevant provision of law.
The 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 after-thought and is not worthy of credence. All
these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly
doubtful.”
19. In fact, in this regard, Section 100 of the Cr.P.C also
accords assistance to the aforesaid finding, by providing that
whenever any search is made, two or more independent and
respectable inhabitants of the locality are required to be made
witnesses to such search, and the search is to be made in their
presence. 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
State Vs.: Santosh FIR No : 795/2020 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 13
available in the vicinity, makes the prosecution version highly
doubtful.
20. 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
Appabhai 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 circumstances 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.
iii). Possibility of misuse of seal of the investigating
officer.
21. As per the version of the prosecution witnesses, the
recovered liquor and sample bottles were duly sealed by IO
with the seal of “NS” which was stated to be handed over to Ct.
Roop Singh after its use vide memo Ex. PW 1/B. Nothing has
come in the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses qua
handing over of seal to any independent public persons by the
IO after sealing the case property and the samples of illicit
liquor. Thus, it is apparent that the seal was not handed over to
any independent witness. There is nothing on record to suggest
State Vs.: Santosh FIR No : 795/2020 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 14
that IO had made efforts to handover the seal to any
independent witness. Further, there is nothing in the
prosecution evidence suggesting the time till when the seal
remained with Ct. Roop Singh or conversely as to when the
same was returned by Ct. Roop Singh to HC Nahar Singh.
There is also no seal returning memo on the record
corroborating the aforesaid facts. In such a factual backdrop,
one irresistible conclusion is drawn that either the seal
remained with the IO or other police officials of the same police
station and therefore, the possibility of tampering with the case
property cannot be ruled out. Moreover, it is 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.
22. 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.”
State Vs.: Santosh FIR No : 795/2020 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 15
23. 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 sealed 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…”….
11. It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the seal
after use was handed over to any of the independent witness.
Even the I.O. examined as PW-2 does not utter a word
regarding the handing over of the seal after use. Therefore, the
conclusion which can be arrived at is that the seal remained
with the Investigating Officer or with the other member of the
raiding party therefore the possibility of interference or
tempering of the seal and the contents of the parcel cannot be
ruled out….”
24. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, the possibility of
misuse of seal and tampering of case property cannot be ruled
out.
iv). Failure to prove the possession of alcohol by accused
beyond permissible limits.
25. The perusal of record shows that the Excise Result dated
08.06.2021 (Ex.AD5) was obtained qua one sample bottle (one
bottle of 180 ml) only, whereby the presence of alcohol in the
said sample bottle 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 (180 ml ), allegedly recovered from the accused,
State Vs.: Santosh FIR No : 795/2020 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 16
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 Revision Petition No.772 /2009, decided on 31
January, 2014, may be 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. There is no gainsaying that if two reasonably probable
and evenly balanced views of the evidence are possible, one
State Vs.: Santosh FIR No : 795/2020 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 17
must necessarily concede to the existence of a reasonable
doubt. The aforementioned lacunae in the story of the
prosecution render the version of the prosecution doubtful,
leading to the irresistible conclusion that the burden of proving
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt has not been
discharged by the prosecution. Thus, this Court is of the opinion
that the prosecution has failed to bring on record any cogent
evidence in order to prove the commission of and guilt of the
accused for offences u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act beyond
reasonable doubt, thus, entitling the accused person to benefit
of doubt and acquittal.
27. Accordingly, this Court hereby accords the benefit of
doubt to the accused for the offences u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act
and holds the accused not guilty of commission of the said
offence. Accused Santosh is thus, acquitted of the offence
u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act.
Announced in the open court on 28.06.2025.
(Rishabh Kapoor)
MM-05 South West District
Dwarka Courts, Delhi
State Vs.: Santosh FIR No : 795/2020 U/s 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. Vikas Puri 18
[ad_1]
Source link