Delhi District Court
State vs Sumitra on 4 August, 2025
CR Cases 3646/2023 State Vs. Sumitra
IN THE COURT OF MR. CHATINDER SINGH, JMFC-04,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. : 99/2023
U/s : 33 The Delhi Excise Act, 2009
P.S. : Maidan Garhi
State Vs. Sumitra
a) CNR No. of the Case : DLST020135252023
b) Name & address of the : HC Sunil Kumar, Belt No.1922,
complainant PS Maidan Garhi, South District, Delhi.
c) Name & address of : Smt. Sumitra
Accused W/o Late Sh. Ramesh Chand
R/o House no. 46A, Hargovind Enclave,
Rajpur Khurd, New Delhi
d) Date of Commission of : 07.03.2023
offence
e) Offence complained of : 33 The Delhi Excise Act, 2009
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
g) Final Order : Acquitted
FIR No. 23/2020 Page No. 1/18
CR Cases 3646/2023 State Vs. Sumitra
Date of Institution : 05.07.2023
Final arguments heard on : 25.07.2025
Judgment Pronounced on : 04.08.2025
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Vide this judgment the accused namely Sumitra W/o late Sh. Ramesh Chand
is being acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 33 Delhi Excise
Act, 2009 in this case FIR No. 99/2023 police station Maidan Garhi by
giving benefit of doubt for the reasons mentioned below.
CASE OF PROSECUTION
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution as unfolded by the police report
under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Cr.P.C‘) is that on 07.03.2023 at about 08:00 PM at DD Park,
Budh Bazar Chowk, Rajpur Khurd Extn., New Delhi within the jurisdiction
of police station Maidan Garhi, the accused was apprehended by
complainant/ HC Sunil Kumar upon suspicion while the complainant was on
patrolling duty. As per the prosecution story the accused was apprehended in
possession of 300 quarter bottles of illicit, without any permit or license of
National Capital Territory of Delhi in contravention of notification issued by
Gov. of NCT of Delhi.
FIR No. 23/2020 Page No. 2/18
CR Cases 3646/2023 State Vs. Sumitra
COURT PROCEEDINGS
3. Upon completion of investigation, police report under Section 173 of the
Cr.P.C. was filed and the accused was consequently summoned vide order
dated 05.07.2023.
4. The copies of the police report and annexed documents were supplied to the
accused in due compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
CHARGE
5. Vide order dated 02.11.2023 passed by Ld. Predecessor Court, charge for the
offence punishable under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act was framed
against the accused to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
6. Vide order dated 11.02.2025, in compliance of the provisions of Section 294
Cr.P.C., the accused was called upon to admit/deny the FIR No. 99/2023
Police Station Maidan Garhi, certificate under Section 65B of Indian
Evidence Act, RC bearing no. 39/21/23 and excise control laboratory report,
which she admitted and the same were accordingly exhibited as Ex. A-1 to
Ex. A-4 respectively. In view of the admission made, the evidence of
DO/HC Ajay, Sh. Rajesh Joshi, chemical examiner and Ct. Sushil was
dispensed with, being admitted by the accused.
FIR No. 23/2020 Page No. 3/18
CR Cases 3646/2023 State Vs. Sumitra EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
7. To prove its case, the prosecution in all examined three witnesses.
a. PW-1 HC Sunil Kumar deposed that on 07.03.2023 he was posted at PS
Maidan Garhi as Head Constable and on that day he alongwith HC
Manjit were on beat patrolling duty then a secret informer met them and
told that a women namely Sumitra was used to sell illicit liquor sale in
Haryana at DDA Park, Budh Bazar Chowk, Rajpur, Delhi and if raid
would conducted, she could be caught. He further deposed that thereafter,
he gave the information regarding the same to SHO and requested for
presence of women Ct. as a part of our duty and thereafter SHO directed
them to take necessary action. He further deposed that in some time, Wct.
Manju also reached the spot and became part of raiding team and they
also asked 2-3 public persons to join our raiding team but they refused to
join. He further deposed that thereafter, at around 08:00 pm, they reached
at the spot i.e. DDA Park, near Budh Bazar, Rajpur where a lady along-
with three white sack was sitting in the park and upon seeing them in
police uniform, she tried to ran away and the secret informer pointed out
towards that lady that she was the same lady who used to sell illicit liquor
there. He further deposed that then he with the help of other staff caught
that lady and during interrogation her name was revealed as Sumitra. He
further deposed that thereafter, he handed over the accused Sumitra to
Wct. Manju. He further deposed that they checked the content of plastic
katta in which illicit liquor was found. He further deposed that thereafter,
FIR No. 23/2020 Page No. 4/18
CR Cases 3646/2023 State Vs. Sumitra
he counted the case property i.e. 3 white sacks in which 300 (100 x 3 =
300) quarter bottles having lable of fresh motta orange for sale in
Haryana, 180 ml each, were found and thereafter, he took out one quarter
bottle and bottle for sample purpose from each katta and rest of the
quarter bottles were kept in white sacks and sealed with the seal of PR.
He further deposed that thereafter, he seized the case property vide
seizure memo which was Ex.PW1/A and thereafter, he prepared the
rukka which was Ex.PW1/B and handed over the same to HC Manjeet
for registration of FIR and thereafter, HC Manjeet went to the PS and
got the FIR registered and came back to the spot and handed over the
copy of FIR and original rukka to HC Ankur as further investigation was
marked to him. He further deposed that thereafter, he also prepared site
plan at instance of HC Manjeet which was Ex.PW1/C and form No. 29
was also filled at the spot by him and he gave the custody of the accused
and case property to HC Ankur and left the spot. He further deposed that
thereafter, accused was released after giving her notice u/S 41 A CrPC
and she was bound down on pabandinama. PW-1 correctly idenfied the
accused in the Court.
b. PW-2 HC Ankur Rana deposed that on 07.03.2023, he was posted as HC
at PS Maidan Garhi and on that day, he along-with HC Manjeet reached
at the spot i.e. DDA Park, Near Budh Bazar Chowk, Rajpur Khurd Ext.
Delhi along-with copy of FIR and original Tehrir as further investigation
in the present case was marked to him. He further deposed that at there,
he met HC Sunil Kumar and Wct. Manju and thereafter, HC Sunil handed
FIR No. 23/2020 Page No. 5/18
CR Cases 3646/2023 State Vs. Sumitra
over seized case property to him and left the spot. He further deposed that
thereafter, he recorded disclosure statement of the accused Sumitra which
was Ex.PW2/A and thereafter, he released the accused after giving notice
u/S 41 A which was Ex.PW2/B and bound down her on pabandinama
which was Ex.PW2/C. He further deposed that seal handling over
memo was also prepared by him and accused was handed over to Wct.
Manju which was Ex.PW2/D and thereafter, he along-with Wct. Manju
and HC Manjeet reached at PS and deposited the case property into
malkhana and ffter some time, he sent the collected sample to excise
lab and collected the result of the same after some time. He further
deposed that thereafter, he prepared the charge sheet and submitted the
same before the hon’ble court.
c. PW-3 W/ct. Manju deposed that on 07.03.2023 he was posted at PS
Maidan Garhi as W/Ct. and on that day DO directed her to go the spot
i.e. DDA park, Budh Bazar Chowk, Rajpur Extn. And thereafter she
alongwith HC Manjeet went to the spot in ERV where they met HC Sunil
and HC Ankur. She further deposed that at about 08:00 pm, secret
informer who was also present there pointed out towards lady who used
to sell there and they apprehended the said lady alongwith 3 plastic katta.
She further deposed that upon inquiry accused revealed her name as
Sumitra. She further deposed that upon checking the contents of the katta
it was found containing 300 quarter bottles of illicit liquor. She further
deposed that thereafter the IO took out one quarter bottle each as sample
and remaining quarter bottles were placed back in white katta and
FIR No. 23/2020 Page No. 6/18
CR Cases 3646/2023 State Vs. Sumitra
sealed the sample bottles with cloth on neck and the remaining bottles in
katta with the seal of ‘PR’. She further deposed that personal search was
also prepared and HC Sunil had prepared rukka at his own and handed
over the same to HC Manjeet for registration of FIR. He further deposed
that he went to PS and got the present case registered and then came
back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka and handed
over the same to HC Ankur. PW-3 correctly identified the accused in the
court and the case property from the samples and photographs brought
by the MHC(M).
d. Thereupon, on oral statement of Ld. APP for the State the PE was closed
and matter was fixed for statement of accused.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
8. In her examination recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C dated 22.05.2025, the
defence of the accused was that of denial. She categorically stated that she is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She further
stated that she was not present at the spot and no recovery has been effected
from her. The accused did not lead any evidence in her defence.
ARGUMENTS
9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State addressed pertinent
arguments. He submitted that the accused as well as the case property have
been correctly identified by the witnesses. He stated that link evidence is
also available. He urged that the case has been proved beyond doubt against
FIR No. 23/2020 Page No. 7/18
CR Cases 3646/2023 State Vs. Sumitra
the accused and prayed for conviction of the accused.
10.On the other hand, Sh. S. K. Solanki, learned counsel for the accused
submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated by the police and
nothing was recovered from her possession. She submitted that the absence
of public witnesses to the alleged recovery is fatal to the case of the
prosecution, inconsistency in timelines provided by the police officials and
that the IO did not prepare any seal handover memo and thus prayed for
acquittal of the accused.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
11.The record has been thoroughly and carefully perused. The respective
submissions of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and
learned counsel for the accused have been considered.
Charge under Section 33 Delhi Excise Act
12.With respect to the charge under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, the case
of the prosecution is that on the fateful day the accused was found in
possession of illicit liquor without any permit or licence. In order to bring
home the charge against the accused, the prosecution was required to prove
beyond reasonable doubt the recovery of illicit liquor from the possession of
the accused.
FIR No. 23/2020 Page No. 8/18
CR Cases 3646/2023 State Vs. Sumitra
Re: Absence of independent witnesses
13.Evidently, no public witness to the recovery of the liquor has been either
cited in the list of witnesses or examined by the prosecution. The recovery is
alleged to have been effected from a residential area. The spot of recovery as
per the site plan Ex. PW-1/C was located on a main road and has several
houses in the neighbour-hood. Further, as per the site plan, the spot of
recovery was Rajpur Khurd, which, according to the site plan, is surrounded
on all sides by commercial spaces and residential colony. The place of
recovery and apprehension of the accused is, therefore, clearly located in an
area where public persons would be readily available. The apprehension and
recovery were allegedly made at about 08.00 PM in the month of March,
wherein it cannot be said that there would have been no public persons
present at the spot. Moreover, the PWs have also not denied the presence of
public persons at the spot. Thus, at the place and time of the alleged
recovery of illicit liquor and apprehension of the accused, public persons
would in all likelihood have been present and available or have at least
passed by the spot. It is not the case of the prosecution that no public person
was present at or near the spot of arrest and recovery.
14.It is further pertinent to note that PW-1 to PW-3 in their cross-examination,
stated that there were public persons nearby the place of incident and they
had asked them to join the investigation but all of them refused. PWs
admittedly had not given any notice to the said persons upon their refusal to
join the investigation. PW-1 to PW-3 in their cross-examination stated that
FIR No. 23/2020 Page No. 9/18
CR Cases 3646/2023 State Vs. Sumitra
they did ask certain public persons to join the proceedings however public
persons refused citing reasons. Further, PW-1 to PW-3 stated that no public
witness came join the investigation. However, neither of them stated the
description of the persons who had allegedly refused to join the
investigation. Further, there is nothing on record to show that PW-1 to PW-3
had served any notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. upon the persons who
refused to join the investigation. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove
that any serious effort was made by PW-1 to PW-3 to join public witnesses
in the proceedings. From a perusal of the record, no serious effort for joining
public witnesses appears to have been made. It is a well-settled proposition
that non-joining of public witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the
investigation by police. Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C also casts a statutory duty
on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the
society. Same has not been done in the present case. This casts a doubt on
the fairness of the investigation. Reliance is placed on paragraph 6 of the
judgment in Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri.L.J.
127, wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had observed as under:
” … According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public
witness in the case while according to Kalam Singh, no
public person was present there. It hardly stands to reason
that at a place like a bus stop near Subhas Bazar, there
would be no person present at a crucial time like 07.30
p.m. when there is a lot of rush of commuters for boarding
the buses to their respective destinations. Admittedly, there
is no impediment in believing the version of the Police
officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good
foundation. At least one of them should deposed that they
tried to contact the public witnesses or that they refused to
join the investigation. Here is a case where no effort wasFIR No. 23/2020 Page No. 10/18
CR Cases 3646/2023 State Vs. Sumitramade to join any public witness even though number of
them were present. No plausible explanation from the side
of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the
independent witnesses in a case of serious nature like the
present one. It may be that there is an apathy on the part
of the general public to associate themselves with the
Police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the
I.O. should have made an earnest effort to join the
independent witnesses. No attempt in this direction
appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a
circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery
of the knife from the person of the accused.”
15.This Court is, however, conscious that the prosecution case cannot be
thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non-joining of public witnesses
as public witnesses keep themselves away from the Court unless it is
inevitable, as has been held in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat,
AIR 1988 SC 696. However, in the present case, it is not only the absence of
public witnesses which raises a doubt on the prosecution but there are other
circumstances too, as discussed hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the
prosecution version.
Re: Departure entry not proved
16.The present case rests entirely on the alleged recovery of case property, i.e.
illicit liquor, from the possession of the accused at the relevant time by a
single police official, who was on patrolling duty at the relevant time and
place, as per the prosecution story. Police officials are under a statutory duty
to mark their departure and arrival in the register kept in the police station
for the purpose as per the Punjab Police Rules. It is relevant here to
reproduce Chapter 22 Rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which reads
FIR No. 23/2020 Page No. 11/18
CR Cases 3646/2023 State Vs. Sumitra
as under:
“22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No. II- The
following matters shall, amongst others, be entered:
(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a
police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever
rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere,
with a statement of the nature of their duty. This entry shall
be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of
the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter
personally by signature or seal.
Note: The term Police Station will include all places such
as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is
maintained.”
17. Since public persons were not joined in the investigation, the departure
entry of the aforesaid police official namely HC Sunil who was allegedly on
patrolling duty at the relevant time and had apprehended the accused with
case property, becomes a vital piece of evidence. No such daily diary entry
regarding departure of PW-1 is, however, present on record. Despite of
cross-examination of the witnesses qua the said departure entries by the
witnesses the prosecution was not able to bring on record any proof of the
said entries, and the same is indispensable as the present case rests solely on
the alleged recovery made by the aforesaid police official.
18.As per prosecution case, HC Sunil was in the area at the relevant time and
after arrest of the accused with alleged property returned to the PS. The DD
entries in register No II are neither showing departure nor arrival entries of
the said official and the same could have been proved by the prosecution.
However, the DD entries regarding return of the police officials have not
FIR No. 23/2020 Page No. 12/18
CR Cases 3646/2023 State Vs. Sumitra
been proved nor the DD number of the arrival entry has been brought on
record. It needs to be appreciated that the said arrival entry of the police
officials would have come in handy in establishing the timelines of the case
and corroborating the same with the testimonies of the police witnesses, but
for the reasons best known to the IO the same have not been placed on
record. When the provisions of law are not strictly complied with the same
can be said to be done with oblique motive and are to be seen with
reservation as has been held by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Rattan Lal v
State, 1987(2) Crimes29. In the instant case also, failure of prosecution to
bring on record the aforesaid DD entry casts shadow on the prosecution case
as whole case rests on the alleged recovery from the accused.
Re: Possibility of misuse of seal of the investigating officer
19.As per the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the sample of liquor and
case property were sealed by the investigating officer with the seal of ‘PR’.
However, the PWs have not deposed qua the handing over of the said seals
to any other witness or police official and no handing over memo regarding
the same was prepared. The seal in the present case was not handed over to
any independent witness nor was it deposited in the malkhana to assail the
possibility of its misuse. Thus, the possibility that the case property may
have been tampered with cannot be ruled out.
Re: Other infirmities in the prosecution case
20. It further needs to be appreciated that after preparing the rukka IO sent HC
FIR No. 23/2020 Page No. 13/18
CR Cases 3646/2023 State Vs. Sumitra
Manjeet for registration of FIR to the PS, however, admittedly seizure memo
Ex. PW-1/A has been prepared by IO prior to sending the Head Constable to
the PS for registration of FIR. It is, therefore, clear that the seizure memos of
the liquor 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
reveals 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 HC Manjeet. Thus, ordinarily,
the FIR number should not find mention in the seizure memo, which came
into existence before registration of the FIR. However, interestingly, the
seizure memo Ex. PW-1/A bear the FIR number and case details in the same
ink and the same handwriting 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 v. The Delhi Administration, 1989
Cri. L.J. 127, wherein it was observed paragraph 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, a
copy of which was sent to the I.O. after its registration. It
comes to that the number of F.I.R. 36 came to theFIR No. 23/2020 Page No. 14/18
CR Cases 3646/2023 State Vs. Sumitraknowledge 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.”
21.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.”
22.In the instant case as well, no explanation has been furnished on record as to
FIR No. 23/2020 Page No. 15/18
CR Cases 3646/2023 State Vs. Sumitra
how the FIR number and case details have appeared on the seizure memos
Ex. PW-1/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.
23. Furthermore, the testimony of PW-1 to PW-3 also reveals that there are
several inconsistencies regarding the preparation of seal handover memo or
return memo.
24. Another important aspect that needs to be appreciated is, no photography or
videography of the accused with the case property has been made.
Moreover, none of the witnesses other than PW-1 were able to tell the
approximate time when HC Manjeet was sent to the PS for registration of
FIR thus raising suspicion about their presence at the spot of recovery itself.
Thus, raising sufficient questions regarding the nature and manner in which
the investigation was carried out by the IO.
25.Furthermore, another important aspect that cannot be sidelined merely as an
irregularity is that the recovery witness i.e., HC Manjeet was alone when he
made a recovery from the possession of the female accused but no effort has
been shown on record to join any public person or female individual before
making a cursory search of the belongings of the accused.
FIR No. 23/2020 Page No. 16/18
CR Cases 3646/2023 State Vs. Sumitra CONCLUSION
26.The facts that no independent witness was cited or examined, daily diary
entry regarding departure of PW-1 has not been proved, possibility of misuse
of seal has not been ruled out and the appearance of FIR number and case
particulars on the seizure memos has not been explained, when kept in
juxtaposition to each other, cast a cloud of suspicion over the prosecution
version. In view of the aforesaid, the possibility of false implication of the
accused in the present case cannot be ruled out.
27.It is trite in criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is under an obligation
to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard
of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of
probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of cogent,
convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt,
the benefit must necessarily be allowed to the accused.
28.Thus, in view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the benefit of doubt ought to be granted to the accused, who is
entitled to be exonerated of the charges against her in the present case. The
accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 33 of
the Delhi Excise Act. Case property be confiscated to State as per rules.
FIR No. 23/2020 Page No. 17/18
CR Cases 3646/2023 State Vs. Sumitra Digitally signed 29.File be consigned to record room. by CHATINDER CHATINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.08.04 Announced in the open Court 17:29:25 +0530 today i.e. on 04th August, 2025 (Chatinder Singh) Judicial Magistrate First Class-04 South /Saket Court/New Delhi FIR No. 23/2020 Page No. 18/18