IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 05, ROOM NO. 513, DWARKA, DELHI. STATE VERSUS RICKY FIR No. 15/09 P.S.: Inderpuri U/S: 61/1/14 [ACT] 1.
Serial No. of the case : 02405R0299812010 2. Date of commission of offence: 29.01.2009 3. Name of the Complainant : HC. Hari Ram, P.S Inderpuri, New Delhi. 4. Name of the accused, and her parentage and residence:[ENTITY], S/o Darshan Singh R/o 2A, JJ colony, Inderpuri, New Delhi 5. Date when judgment : 23.06.2012 was reserved 6. Date when Judgment : 23.06.2012 was pronounced 7. Offence Complained of : [SECTION] Punjab or proved Excise Act 8. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty 9. Final Judgment : Convicted for offence U/[SECTION] Pubjab Excise Act. PS- Inderpuri
Brief [ENTITY]ment of reasons for the decision of the case
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution are that on 29.01.2009, at about 11.45 am near A block bus stand, Inderpuri, accused was found in possession of three box containing 34 bottles of illict liquor without any license/permit. The case was registered against the accused vide FIR No. 15/09, PS Inderpuri. The Challan was filed on 28.05.2009.
2. On appearance of the accused, a charge for the offence under [SECTION] of [ACT] was framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty and claim trial.
3. Prosecution has examined for witnesses namely PW1 [ENTITY], PW2 WASI [ENTITY], PW3 [ENTITY] and PW4 Smt [ENTITY] to prove the case against the accused. The evidence of each of PWs is very relevant and the same is analyzed and discussed later on at appropriate places.
4. After the Prosecution evidence was closed the statement of accused was recorded under [SECTION] [ACT] and all the incriminating evidence were put to him where he denied his involvement in the case. He further stated that he do not wish to lead any evidence in his defence. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for final arguments.
PS- Inderpuri
5. Ld APP for the [ENTITY] addressed useful and pertinant arguments. Ld. APP for the state has argued that the case property has been correctly identified by the witnesses including the recovery witnesses i.e PW1 and the case has been proved beyond doubt against the accused and prays for conviction of the accused. He also argued that the case property has not been tempered with as the seal has intact when case property was produced in the Court.
6. On the other hand, the accused submits that he was falsely implicated by the police. He further prays for leniency.
7. The offence u/[SECTION] [ACT] is made out only if the accused is found in possession of illicit liquor beyond the permissible limit without any license or permit. In the present case it is important to prove the seizure of the case property from the possession of the accused as well as whether the seized case property is liquor or not.
8. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
8.1 Seizure of Case Property: PW1 is the complainant. He stated that on 29.01.2009 while he was on patrolling duty and going from A block, Inderpuri, he saw one person on scooter who tried to flee away after seeing him and in the process the scooter get slipped and the driver also fell down. He futher stated that he picked the driver of the scooter and saw two petis of illicit liquor was also lying near the PS- Inderpuri scooter and one petti of liquor was stuck in the footrest of the scooter.
He accordingly informed the police station from where [ENTITY] reached the spot and accused alongwith the case were handed over to the IO who seized the same and found 34 bottles of illicit liquor which was sealed with the seal of JK vide Ex. PW1/B. He proved his complaint vide Ex. PW1/A as well as the handing over of seal was proved by PW1. He also stated that the scooter was seized vide Ex. PW1/C and excise form was filled at the spot. He also proved the arrest and personal search of the accused vide Ex. PW1/D and PW1/E as well as preparation of the site plan. During his cross examination he stated that accused was riding the scooter but denied the suggestion that he was not having liquor or he is deposing falsely. 8.2 PW2 is the DO who recorded the FIR and proved the same vide Ex. PW2/A and PW2/B. 8.3 PW3 is the IO. He stated that on receipt of DD No. 15A, he reached A block bus stand where Ct [ENTITY] handed over the accused and illicit liquor and one scooter No. DL 6S Y 6513. PW3 also proved the complaint as recorded by him as well as the seal and seizure of the case property vide Ex. PW1/B and also seizure of the scooter and preparation of site plan as well as the arrest of the accused. He also correctly identified the accused as well as the case property. During his cross examination by the accused, he denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the accused and accused is falsely implicated.
8.4 PW4 is the superdar of the scooter and proved the PS- Inderpuri superdarginama vide Ex. PW4/A.
9. Absence of Independent Witnesses: Although, no public witness have been joined in the investigation, however, the said fact itself cannot be a ground for rejecting the unimpeached testimony of the PWs. The provisions as provided under [SECTION] [ACT] is only directory and failure to comply with the said provisions will not invariably be fatal to the case of the prosecution. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [ENTITY] of Punjab Vs. Balbir Singh reported in AIR 1994 SC 1872 that;
"The scope of these two sections ([SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT]) have been examined in a number of cases. In Wasan Singh v. [ENTITY] (1981) 2 SCC this Court has clearly held that irregularity in a search cannot vitiate the seizure of the articles. In Suder Singh v. [ENTITY] of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 411, it is held that irregularity cannot vitiate the trial unless the accused has been prejudiced by the defect and it is also held that if reliable local witnesses are not available the search would not be vitiated. In [ENTITY] of Maharashtra v. P.K. Pathak, AIR SC 1224, it is held that absence of any independent from the locality to witness the search does not affect the trial and the conviction of the accused under the [ACT]. In Radha Kishan vs. [ENTITY] of Uttar Pradesh, 1963 SC 822, it is held that irregularity in a search would , however, cast a duty upon the Court to scrutinize the evidence regarding the search very carefully. In [PRECEDENT] it is held PS- Inderpuri that when the salutary provisions have not been complied with, it may, however, affect the weight of the evidence in support of the search or may furnish a reason for disbelieving the evidence produced by the prosecution unless the prosecution properly explains such circumstance which made it impossible for it to comply with these provisions. 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."
There is no reason to doubt the testimony of PWs merely because they are police personnel. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh Vs. [ENTITY] (Delhi Administration) reported in AIR 2003 SC 1311;
" The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. It will all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no principle of general application can be laid down "
In the present case, the chain of events are complete as not only the seizure but the complaint as well as the arrest of the accused was PS- Inderpuri duly proved. Moreover, the case property produced in the court is the same condition in which it was sealed and seized as seal was intact when it was produced before the court.
10. Presence of alcohol content in the case property: As per the report of Assistant Chemical Examiner, Excise Department, Govt. of Delhi the sample was tested positive for ethyle alcohol. The evidence of chemical examiner is admissible without he being examined as per [ACT].
11. In the light of above discussion and the evidence on record, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The offence is therefore clearly made out against the accused.
12. Accordingly, the accused is convicted for the offence under [SECTION] of [ACT]. Put up for orders on sentencing at 2.00 pm today itself.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT) COURT ON 23.06.2012 [ENTITY].
PS- Inderpuri