Delhi District Court
State vs Sonia on 23 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF HARSHAL NEGI
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02, DWARKA COURT, NEW
DELHI
FIR No.: 753/2016
PS: Dabri
U/s: 33 Delhi Excise Act
Case no. 3049/2018
State
Vs.
Sonia
W/o Sh. Sanjay
R/o D-8, Gali no. 8, New Jankipuri, Delhi. ..... Accused
S. No. of the case : 3049/2018
The date of offence : 03.11.2016
The name of the complainant : SI Sanjay Kumar
The name of the accused : Sonia
The offence complained : 33 Delhi Excise Act
The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Argument heard on : 09.12.2024
The date of order : 23.12.2024
The final order : Acquittal
Ld. APP for the State : Sh. Vinay Tehlan
Brief facts:
1.
It is the case of the prosecution that on 03.11.2016 HC Maan Singh along with Ct
Vikas and W/Ct Geeta were on beat duty. That at around 12.45 pm SI Sanjay
along with Ct Akhilesh reached in front of old age home on DD No 22A and they
informed them regarding illicit liquor. A raiding party was constituted and SI
Sanjay Kumar informed the SHO regarding the same. Thereafter, SI Sanjay along
with the raiding party reached at house no D-8, Gali No 8, New Janakpuri, Delhi
where they noticed a woman who was sitting on a chain along with plastic katta.
On seeing them she started to go inside the house along with plastic katta and she
FIR No.: 753/2016 State versus Sonia Page No. 1 of 16
was stopped with the help of W/Ct Geeta. On checking the plastic katta 11
quarter bottles of illicit liquor of Impact grain whisky 180 ml for sale in Haryana
only, 3 quarter bottles of make Episode Classic whisky 180 ml and 2 quarter
bottles of Rasila Santara Masaledar were found. Thereafter, an FIR bearing no.
753/2016 u/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act was registered at PS Dabri. Investigation of
the case was handed over to firstly to HC Maan Singh and then to Investigating
Officer HC Bane Singh and thereafter to ASI Sumer Singh who filed the
chargesheet.
2. On completion of investigation, a chargesheet u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act was filed
against the present accused, i.e., Sonia. After taking cognizance of the offence,
the accused was summoned to face trial.
3. On her appearance, a copy of chargesheet along with documents were supplied to
the accused in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC‘). On finding prima facie case against the
accused, a charge under section 33 Delhi Excise Act was framed against her, to
which she had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the course of the trial the prosecution examined the following witnesses:
i. Ct Akhilesh Kumar Meena was examined as PW 1. He stated that
on 03.11.2016 he was posted as Constable at PS Dabri. On that
day he along with SI Sanjay Kumar reached near old age home on
DD No 22A. There Ct Vikas, HC Maan Singh and W/Ct Geeta
were found present and they informed regaring the secret
information of illicit liquor. A raiding party was constituted. 2-3
public persons were asked to join the investigation but non agreed
due to their own reasons and left the spot without disclosing their
names and addresses. SI Sanjay Kumar informed SHO regarding
the same and he asked SI Sanjay Kumar to make a raid. SI Sanjay
Kumar along with the raiding party reached at house no D-8, GaliFIR No.: 753/2016 State versus Sonia Page No. 2 of 16
No 8, New Janakpuri, Delhi. There they noticed a woman who was
sitting on chair along with plastic katta. On seeing them she started
going inside the house along with plastic katta. She was stopped
with the help of W/Ct Geeta and thereafter, she was inquired and
disclosed her name as Sonia. The plastic katta was checked and it
contained total 11 quarter illicit liquor Impact grain whisky 180 ml
for sale in Haryana Only, three quarter bottles make Episode
Classic Whisky 180 ml for sale in Haryana only and two quarter
bottles of Rasila Santara Masaledar for sale in Haryana only. One
quarter bottle as a sample from each abovesaid three makes were
separated. Pullanda prepared with white cloth and sealed with seal
of SK. The samples were given Mark A1, A2, A3. The remaining
illicit liquor was again put in plastic katta. It was tied with a while
colour cloth and sealed with seal SK. It was given Mark S1. The
same was seized vide Ex PW1/A bearing his signature at point A.
SI Sanjay Kumar prepared rukka and sent him to PS Dabri along
with the rukka to get the FIR registered. Thus, SI Sanjay Kumar
also prepared form M 29 and seal after use was given to Ct Vikas
before he left for PS. (Accused Sonia is present in Court and
witness correctly identifies the accused.) He came back to the spot
after the registration of the FIR along with HC Banne Singh. He
can identify the case property if shown to him. (At this stage
MHC(M) produced the case property. The pullanda is opened with
the permission of the Court. Case property is opened with the
permission of Court. Case property is correctly identified by the
witness as the abovesaid seized case property in the present case.)
The case property is now Ex P1 collectively.
FIR No.: 753/2016 State versus Sonia Page No. 3 of 16
ii. In his cross examination he stated that they left the spot at about
4.30 pm after completion of investigation. He along with case
property went to PS in the ERV Vehicle. SHO PS Dabri called SI
Sanjay in his presence. SI Sanjay did not call SHO in his presence.
He went to the PS for registration of FIR at about 2.40 pm on one
private motorcycle which belongs to one of his colleague and the
said police official HC Maan Singh was present at the spot and he
came back to the spot at about 3.15 pm. Arrest memo and other
documents were prepared after he came to the spot. There were no
shops but there were residential houses and public persons were
passing by. All the documents were prepared by the IO in his own
handwriting. Form M 29 and seizure memo were prepared before
complaint was recorded. The distance between the spot and PS
was around 1.5 km. He denied that he knew the accused prior to
the incident. He affirmed that case property was not disposed off in
his presence. He denied that he is deposing falsely or that no
recovery was effected from the accused or that all proceedings
were conducted in PS.
iii. SI Sanjay Kumar was examined as PW2. He stated that on
03.11.2016, he was posted as SI at PS Dabri. On that day, he
alongwith Ct. Akhilesh Kumar Meena reached near old age home
on DD no. 22A. There Ct. Vikas, HC Maan Singh and W/Ct. Geeta
found present, they informed regarding the secret information
regarding illicit liquor. A raiding party constituted. 2-3 public
persons were asked to join the investigation but non agreed due to
their own reasons and left the spot without disclosing their names
and addresses. He informed the SHO regarding the same. He asked
him to make a raid. He alongwith the raiding party reached at
FIR No.: 753/2016 State versus Sonia Page No. 4 of 16
house no. D-8, gali no. 8, New Jankipuri, Delhi. There they
noticed a woman who was sitting on chair alongwith a plastic
katta. On seeing them, she started going inside the house
alongwith plastic katta. She was stopped with the help of W/Ct.
Geeta and thereafter, she was inquired. She disclosed her name as
Sonia. The plastic katta was checked. On checking total 11 quarter
bottles of illicit liquor make Impact grain whisky 180ml for sale in
Haryana only, three quarter bottles make Episode Classic whisky
180 ml for sale in Haryana only and two quarter bottles of Rasila
Santara Masaledar for sale in Haryana only were found insice the
katta. One quarter bottle as a sample from each abovesaid three
makes were separated. Pullanda prepared with white cloth and
sealed with seal of SK. The samples were given Mark A1, A2 and
A3 respectively. The remaining illicit liquor was again put in
plastic katta. It was tied with a white colour cloth and sealed with
seal SK. It was given Mark S1. The same was seized vide Ex.
PW1/A bearing his signature at point B. He prepared rukka and
sent Ct. Akhilesh Kumar Meena to PS Dabri alongwith rukka to
get the FIR registered. Thus, he also prepared form M-29 and seal
after use was given to Ct. Vikas before Ct. Akhilesh Kumar Meena
left for PS. (Accused Sonia is present in the court and witness
correctly identifies the accused as the abovesaid lady.) Ct.
Akhilesh Kumar Meena came back to the spot after registration of
FIR alongwith HC Banne Singh. Further investigation was given
to HC Banne Singh. HC Banne Singh prepared site plan at his
instance. The site plan is now Ex. PW2/A. Accused Sonia
alongwith case property were handed over to HC Banne Singh.
Thereafter, he left the spot. He can identify the case property, if
FIR No.: 753/2016 State versus Sonia Page No. 5 of 16
shown to him. (At this stage, MHC(M) produced the case property.
The pullanda is opened with the permission of court. Case
property is correctly identified by the witness as the abovesaid
seized case property in the present case. The case property is now
Ex. P1 collectively.) He further stated that he had filled form M29
which is now Ex. PW-2/B bearing his signature at point A. He had
prepared the rukka, the same is now Ex. PW-2/C bearing his
signature at point A. The site plan was prepared by HC Bane Singh
which is already Ex. PW-2/A bearing his signature at point B.
iv. In his cross examination PW 2 stated that they left the spot at
about 4.30 PM after completion of investigation. He alongwith
case property went to the PS in the ERV vehicle. SHO, PS Dabri
called him at about 12.30 PM. He also called SHO at about 1.00
PM. Ct. Akhilesh went to PS for registration of FIR but he do not
remember, how he went to the PS.Ct. Akhilesh came back to spot
at about 3.30 PM. Arrest memo and other documents were
prepared by second IO. These documents were not prepared in his
presence. He left the spot at about 4.30 PM. There were no shops
but there were residential houses and public persons were passing
by. Some of the documents were prepared by him and some of the
documents were prepared by other police officials. Form M-29 and
seizure memo were prepared before complaint was recorded. The
distance between the spot and the PS was around 1.5 Km. He took
the seal from Ct. Vikas on the same day after the deposition of
case property in Malkhana. He denied that he knew the accused
prior to the incident. He denied that case property was not
disposed of in his presence. He denied that he is deposing falsely
or that no recovery was effected from accused or that all
FIR No.: 753/2016 State versus Sonia Page No. 6 of 16
proceedings were conducted in PS. He had prepared the rukka at
about 02:35 PM. The rukka and form M29 is written in his
handwriting and bears his signature.
v. HC Maan Singh was examined as PW 3. He stated on 03.11.2016,
he was posted as Head Constable at PS Dabri. On that day, he
alongwith Ct. Vikas and W/Ct. Geeta were on beat Duty. That day,
at around 12.45 PM, SI Sanjay Kumar alongwith C. Akhilesh
reached in front of old age home on DD no. 22A. They informed
them regarding the secret information regarding illicit liquor. A
raiding party constituted. 2-3 public persons were asked to join the
investigation but non agreed due to their own reasons and left the
spot without disclosing their names and addresses. SI Sanjay
Kumar informed the SHO regarding the same. He asked SI Sanjay
Kumar to make a raid. SI Sanjay Kumar alongwith the raiding
party reached at house no. D-8, gali no. 8, New Jankipuri, Delhi.
There they noticed a woman who was sitting on chair alongwith a
plastic katta. On seeing them, she started going inside the house
alongwith plastic katta. She was stopped with the help of W/Ct.
Geeta and thereafter, she was inquired. She disclosed her name as
Sonia. The plastic katta was checked. On checking total 11 quarter
bottles of illicit liquor make Impact grain whisky 180ml for sale in
Haryana only, three quarter bottles make Episode Classic whisky
180 ml for sale in Haryana only and two quarter bottles of Rasila
Santara Masaledar for sale in Haryana only were found inside the
katta. One quarter bottle as a sample from each abovesaid three
makes were separated. Pullanda prepared with white cloth and
sealed with seal of SK. The samples were given Mark A1, A2 and
A3 respectively. The remaining illicit liquor was again put in
FIR No.: 753/2016 State versus Sonia Page No. 7 of 16
plastic katta. It was tied with a white colour cloth and sealed with
seal SK. It was given Mark S1. The same was seized vide Ex.
PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. SI Sanjay Kumar
prepared rukka and sent to Ct. Akhilesh Kumar to PS Dabri
alongwith rukka to get the FIR registered. Thus, SI Sanjay Kumar
also prepared form M-29 and seal after use was given to Ct. Vikas
before Ct. Akhilesh Kumar left for PS. (Accused Sonia is present
in the court and witness correctly identifies the accused as the
abovesaid lady.) He came back to the spot after registration of FIR
alongwith HC Banne Singh. Further investigation was handed over
to HC Banne singh. Thereafter, he left the spot. His statement u/s
161 CrPC was recorded by HC Banne Singh at the spot. He can
identify the case property, if shown to him. (At this stage,
MHC(M) produced the case property. The pullanda is opened with
the permission of court. Case property is correctly identified by the
witness as the abovesaid seized case property in the present case.
The case property is now Ex. P1 collectively.)
vi. In his cross examination PW 3 stated that they left the spot at
about 4.30 PM after completion of investigation. He cannot say
how the case property went to the PS. He was relieved from the
spot by IO at about 4.30 PM. He received the call of Duty Officer
at about 12.30 PM. Ct. Akhilesh went to PS for registration of FIR
at about 2.30 PM on his motorcycle. Ct. Akhilesh came back to
spot at about 3.30 PM. Arrest memo and other documents were
prepared by second IO. These documents were not prepared in his
presence. There were no shops but there were residential houses
and public persons were passing by. All the documents were
prepared by IO in his own handwriting. Form M-29 and seizure
FIR No.: 753/2016 State versus Sonia Page No. 8 of 16
memo were prepared before complaint was recorded. The distance
between the spot and the PS was around 2 Km. HC Banne Singh
came to spot at about 3.30 PM on his own motorcycle. He
affirmed that he knew the accused prior to the incident. He
affirmed that case property was not disposed of in his presence. He
denied that he is deposing falsely or that no recovery was effected
from accused or that all proceedings were conducted in PS.
vii. SI Sumer Singh was examined as PW 4. He stated that in the year
2017, he was posted in Dabri as ASI. Present case was marked to
him by MHCR. After that he filed the chargesheet before the
concerned court. Opportunity was given to accused to cross
examine PW 4, however, no cross examination was carried out.
viii. ASI Banne Singh was examined as PW 5. He stated that on
03.11.2016, the present case was registered and on the instructions
of SHO, he was appointed the IO in the case. Thereafter he went to
the spot i.e. D-8, Gali No. 8, New Janki Puri, where he met SI
Sanjay Kumar who handed over him case property and relevant
documents and also informed him that accused was released on
pabandinama. After that, he at the instance of SI Sanjay Kumar,
prepared site plan already Ex. PW-2/A bearing his signature at
point A. After that, he came back to PS where he deposited the
case property at malkhana. On 22.11.2016, he along with W/Ct.
Poonam arrested the accused in the court complex at about 02:30
PM vide arrest memo Ex. PW-5/A bearing his signature at point A,
got the accused personally searched through W/Ct Poonam vide
personal search Ex. PW-5/B bearing his signature at point A. After
that, during investigation, he recorded statement of witness u/s 161
Cr.P.C. He can identify the accused. (Accused is absent. At this
FIR No.: 753/2016 State versus Sonia Page No. 9 of 16
stage, ld. counsel for accused submits that her identity is not
disputed.)
ix. In his cross-examination PW 5 stated that he reached at the spot at
about 03:00 PM and left the spot at about 06:00 PM on his
motorcycle. No notice was served to the public person in his
presence. He denied that he is deposing falsely or prepared
documents while sitting at the PS.
5. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 294 CRPC and she admitted
the following documents:
(a) FIR No. 40/20167 PS-Dabri as Ex. P1/A/1.
(b) Report of Excise Lab as Ex. P/A/2
6. Thus, witness at serial No 3,4,5 and 8 were dropped from the list of witness.
7. The prosecution evidence was closed and thereafter the statement of accused u/s
313 CrPC r/w Section 281 CrPC was recorded on 05.11.2024 wherein all the
incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was put to her, which she
had denied to be correct and submitted that she was not found in possession of
illicit liquor. That she was falsely implicated in this present case. That she is
innocent and all the witnesses deposing against her are interested witnesses. The
accused chose not to lead any evidence in her defence.
8. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that it is clear from the statement of the
complainant and other witnesses as well as the documents appearing on record
that the accused was in possession of illicit liquor. He has thus, submitted that the
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and
she be, therefore, held guilty and convicted for the above-said offence.
9. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to
establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and since nothing incriminating has
appeared against the accused, she be, therefore, acquitted for the offence charged.
FIR No.: 753/2016 State versus Sonia Page No. 10 of 16
10. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel at length, perused
the record, gone through the relevant provisions of law and given my thoughts to
the matter.
Findings of the Court
11. Before embarking on the analysis and appreciation of the statements and
evidences on record it is apposite to state that to bring home the guilt of the
accused in any criminal matter beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt the
burden rests always upon the prosecution. The burden of proof on the
prosecution is heavy, constant and does not shift. The case of the prosecution
needs to stand on its own footing failing which benefit of doubt ought to be given
in favour of the accused. Needless to say, in this case also, with or without
defense evidence, the prosecution has to establish its case beyond reasonable
doubt. On the touchstone of the above settled legal proposition the facts of the
present case are to be analysed.
I. Non-joining of Public Witnesses
12. One of the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the accused is that since no independent
witness has been joined at the time of investigation, it is, therefore, difficult to
believe the prosecution version as it creates a doubt on the veracity of the
statement of police witnesses.
13. This court has given its thoughts to the above contention of Ld. Counsel for the
accused. Perusal of the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses reveals that
they have categorically stated that there were public persons were passing by.
They had also asked public persons to join the investigation, but none of them
had agreed. Thus, it is not the case of the prosecution that no public person was
present at or near the spot of recovery. However, it is equally true that no steps
are shown to have been taken to note down the names and addresses of those
persons. It is a well settled proposition of law that non-joining of public witness
throws doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. Section 100 (4) of
FIR No.: 753/2016 State versus Sonia Page No. 11 of 16
the CrPC also casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two
respectable persons of the society. However, no public person has been joined by
the IO in the present case.
14. In a case titled as Nanak Chand Vs. State of Delhi, 1990 SCC OnLine Del 469 ,
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
“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 are 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 (Emphasis supplied).
15. In the present case also, non-joining of any public person as a witness creates
doubt on the case of the prosecution. Although, this Court is conscious of the fact
that it is a well settled law that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or
doubted on the sole ground of non-joining of public witnesses as they keep
themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable, 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 in the
later part of the judgment, which raise suspicion over the prosecution case.
II. No seal Handing over memo.
16. PW 2/IO in his examination stated that after sealing the case property he handed
over the seal to Ct Vikas. However, record reflects that no seal handing over
memo was prepared nor any seal handing over memo has been brought on
record. Thus, in the instant case no handing over memo of the seal was prepared
which can suggest that case property remained intact and there is no tampering
FIR No.: 753/2016 State versus Sonia Page No. 12 of 16
with the same.
17. As per evidence available on record, the seal after use was not given to any
independent public person. Further, there is nothing on record to prove whether
the said seal was ever deposited in the Malkhana of Police Station or not. In such
case, tampering with case property can also not be ruled out. As a result, the
benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. Reliance is placed upon the
decision in Safiullah v. State, (1993) 49 DLT 193, where the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi 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. …… Once a doubt is created in
the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same
should go to the accused.”
III. Discrepancy in the case qua Seizure Memo and Form M 29.
18. There exists yet another discrepancy in the case of the prosecution. PW 2/IO in
his examination categorically stated that he prepared the seizure memo and Form
M 29 and thereafter he recorded the statement of PW 1 and prepared the rukka
and after the preparation of rukka he got the FIR registered through PW1. The
same has been stated by PW 1 in his examination. Thus, it is clear from the
testimony of PW 1 and PW 2/IO that the seizure memo and Form M 29 was
prepared before the tehrir/original rukka was handed over by PW2 IO to PW1 for
registration of the FIR. The FIR was thus, admittedly registered after the
preparation of the seizure memo and Form M 29, however, surprisingly it bears
the FIR number and it is thus worth wondering that if the FIR was never
registered at the time when the seizure memo and Form M 29 were prepared,
FIR No.: 753/2016 State versus Sonia Page No. 13 of 16
how the FIR number came to be noted in the seizure memo and Form M 29 since
the number of the FIR could have come to knowledge of PW 2/IO only after a
copy of the FIR was brought to the spot by PW 1. Thus, the number of FIR in no
circumstances could have been mentioned by the IO on the seizure memo and
Form M 29, which came into existence before registration of the FIR.
19. In this context, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi
Administration, 1987 SCC OnLine Del 290, has observed as under in paragraph
6:
“Learned counsel for the State concedes that
immediately after the arrest of the accused, his personal
search was effected and the memo Ex. PW11/D was
prepared. Thereafter, the sketch plan of the knife was
prepared in the presence of the witnesses. After that, the
ruqa EX. PW11/F was sent to the Police Station for the
registration of the case on the basis of which the FIR,
PW11/G was recorded. The F.I.R. is numbered as 36, a
copy of which was sent to the I.O. after its registration.
It comes to that the number of F.I.R. 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 intoFIR No.: 753/2016 State versus Sonia Page No. 14 of 16
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.”
20. In another case titled Mohd. Hashim v. State, 1999 SCC OnLine Del 859 , the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with an appeal under the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has also observed about the
discrepancy, i.e., appearance of FIR number on seizure memo and other
documents before registration of FIR and it runs as under:
“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, itFIR No.: 753/2016 State versus Sonia Page No. 15 of 16
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.”
21. In the light of the abovesaid judgments, the mentioning of the number of FIR in
the seizure memo creates serious doubt on the prosecution version and alleged
recovery of illicit liquor and it leads to only one conclusion that either the said
document was prepared later on or that the FIR was registered earlier in point of
time. In both the aforesaid eventualities, a reasonable doubt has been raised on
the version of the prosecution the benefit of which has to be given to the accused.
22. Thus, in light of the above discussions which throws doubt on the authenticity of
the prosecution version, this court is of the opinion that prosecution has failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that illicit liquor was recovered from the
possession of the accused. The accused Sonia W/o Sh. Sanjay is, therefore,
acquitted of the offence u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act.
Announced in the open court on 23.12.2024.
(Harshal Negi)
JMFC-02/Dwarka Court,
New Delhi, 23.12.2024
It is certified that the present judgment runs into 16 pages and each page
bears my signature.
(Harshal Negi)
JMFC-02/DwarkaCourt,
New Delhi, 23.12.2024
FIR No.: 753/2016 State versus Sonia Page No. 16 of 16