Delhi District Court
State vs Nasiruddin Khan Etc on 13 February, 2026
State Vs. Nasiruddin Khan FIR No.35/2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. UDITA JAIN GARG:
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, WEST
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
State vs. Nasiruddin Khan
FIR No. 35/2014
U/sec. 33/58 Delhi Excise Act
PS: Ranjit Nagar
Date of institution of the case: 02.07.2014
Date on which judgment is reserved: 06.01.2026
Date on which judgment is delivered: 13.02.2026
Cr. Case No.65802/2016
CNR No.DLWT02002694-2014
JUDGMENT
a) Date of commission of the : 20.01.2014
offence
b) Name of the complainant : SI Amit Tyagi
c) Name of the accused persons : 1) Nasiruddin Khan S/o Sh. Sakir
and their parentage Ali R/o E-79, Block-E, Harkesh
Nagar, New Delhi.
2) Sandeep @ Sunny S/o Sh.
Ramesh Chand R/o H. No. 2709,
Gali No. 13, 2nd Floor, Ranjit Nagar,
New Delhi.
d) Offence complained of Sec. 33/58 Delhi Excise Act.
:
Digitally
signed by
Page No.1 of 25 UDITA UDITA
JAIN
JAIN GARG
Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
15:49:00
+0530
State Vs. Nasiruddin Khan FIR No.35/2014
e) Offence charged of Sec. 33/38 r/w 58(d) of Delhi
: Excise Act.
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Order : Acquitted
h) Date of such order : 13.02.2026
Brief reasons for the just decision of the case:-
Succinctly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on
20.01.2014, IO/SI Amit Tyagi alongwith Ct. Manjeet were
patrolling in the area of the police station. When they reached
Madhav Setu, Ranjit Nagar, then, at around 6.15 PM, one secret
informer met them and told them that a Maruti Echo car No.
DL1YD1278 will pass from the spot, which contains illegal liquor,
and can be recovered if a raid is conducted. IO/SI Amit Tyagi
informed the situation to SHO concerned, who directed them to set
up a picket at Madhav Setu and for checking the vehicles coming
from Naraina road. In the meanwhile, 4-5 passerby were also asked
to join the raiding party, however, all of them went away citing their
legitimate compulsions without giving their names and addresses, to
whom notice could not be given due to paucity of time. It is averred
that at around 6.35 PM, a Maruti Echo car No. DLIYD-1278 (White
colour) was seen coming from Naraina road towards Ranjeet Nagar.
When SI Amit Tyagi signaled the driver of the said car to stop, the
vehicle stopped about 15-20 meters before the picket and two boys
sitting in the front seats got out and started running. The driver of
Digitally
Page No.2 of 25 signed by
UDITA
UDITA JAIN
JAIN GARG
Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
15:49:05
+0530
State Vs. Nasiruddin Khan FIR No.35/2014
the said car was caught by SI/Amit Tyagi, but the other boy ran
away from the spot, about whom Ct. Manjeet stated that the said
boy is Sandeep @ Sunni, who has even previously been arrested in
their police station in a liquor case and whom he recognizes very
well. During interrogation, the name of the driver of the said vehicle
was disclosed as Nasiruddin Khan s/o Sh. Sakir Ali. Upon checking
the vehicle, 5 white plastic bags were found between the rear seats,
on which different marks were printed. Upon checking them, there
were two boxes of illicit liquor in each bag and 48 quarter bottles in
each box, making the total number of quarter bottles to be 480.
Thereafter, SI/Amit Tyagi once again tried to join 4-5 passerby in
the investigation by explaining the situation to them, but without
any luck. Thereafter, SI/Amit Tyagi separated one quarter bottle
from each boxes as sample and wrapped the mouth of the samples
with a white cloth duly sealed with the official seal of RTNGR-III
and gave Serial No. 1 to 10 to them. All the quarter bottles were of
the same brand containing labels of ” Impact Grain Whisky For Sale
In Haryana Only, Distilled Blended And Bottled By Ads Sprite Pvt
Ltd.”. He kept remaining boxes in the same plastic bags and
wrapped the mouth of the bags with a white cloth and sealed with
the seal of RTNGR-III. Form M-29 was filled on the spot and the
case property was seized. During investigation, accused Nasiruddin
Khan stated that the illicit liquor belong to co- accused Sandeep@
Sunny, who is a resident of Gurgaon and whose Ph. No. is
8447586252, whom he can identify. Seal after use was handed over
to Constable Manjeet. Thereafter, he prepared the rukka and sent the
Digitally
Page No.3 of 25 signed by
UDITA
UDITA JAIN
JAIN GARG
Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
15:49:09
+0530
State Vs. Nasiruddin Khan FIR No.35/2014
tehrir through Constable Manjeet to the Police Station on the basis
whereof present FIR was registered against the accused Nasiruddin
Khan under section 33/58 of the Delhi Excise Act (herein after
referred to as the Act). After registration of the FIR, investigation
was marked to the IO, who prepared the site plan, recorded the
disclosure statement of the accused Nasiruddin Khan, arrested the
accused and conducted his personal search. Case property was
deposited in the Malkhana.
During investigation, on 27.01.20214, accused Sandeep @
Sunny was also arrested from his house i.e. H.No.2709, 2 nd Floor,
Gali No.13, Ranjeet Nagar, Delhi by the IO at the instance of Ct.
Manjeet, who disclosed in his disclosure statement Ex.PW1/5 that
he purchased the illicit liquor from Gurugram, Haryana and then
used to sold the same in Ranjeet Nagar illegally.
The sample bottle was sent to the Excise Laboratory for
examination and the result of Ethyl alcohol was found positive.
After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed
before the court. Consequently, accused Nasiruddin Khan and
accused Sandeep @ Sunny was summoned to face the trial. On his
appearance in the Court, the copies of documents relied upon by the
prosecution, were supplied to the accused as per norms.
Thereafter, charge under Sec. 33/38 r/w Section 58(d) of
Delhi Excise Act was framed against the accused persons namely
Nasiruddin Khan and Sandeep @ Sunny to which they pleaded not
Digitally
signed by
Page No.4 of 25 UDITA UDITA
JAIN GARG
JAIN Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
15:49:12
+0530
State Vs. Nasiruddin Khan FIR No.35/2014
guilty and claimed trial.
Since both the accused persons admitted the genuineness and
veracity of FIR bearing No.35/2014, PS Ranjit Nagar Ex.A1,
Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, Ex.A2 and
chemical examination report no.SZD732-SZD741 dated 05.02.2014,
Ex.A3 under section 294 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973
on 31.03.2023, the examination of PW DO/HC Vikas and chemical
examiner was thereby dispensed with.
With a view to connect the accused with the crime, the
prosecution has examined as many as four (04) witnesses.
PW1/HC Om Prakash deposed that on 20.01.2014,
investigation of the case was marked to him and he alongwith Ct.
Manjeet went to the spot i.e. Madhav Sethu, Ranjit Nagar, Delhi
where SI Amit Tyagi met them and handed over the custody of
accused Nasiruddin and the recovered case property. He deposed
that he recorded the statement of SI Amit Tyagi and prepared site
plan Ex. PW1/A at the instance of SI Amit Tyagi. He arrested the
accused Nasiruddin vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B, conducted
personal search vide memo Ex. PW1/C and informed his family
members. He also recorded disclosure statement of accused
Nasiruddin Ex. PW1/D. He deposed that all the documents were
prepared by him at the spot and sent the accused Nasiruddin for
medical examination through Ct. Chandraveer. Case property
including the liquor and car, the number of which he could not
Digitally
Page No.5 of 25 UDITA
signed by
UDITA
JAIN GARG
JAIN Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
15:49:16
+0530
State Vs. Nasiruddin Khan FIR No.35/2014
remember, were taken to the PS and deposited in malkhana. He
further deposed that on 27.01.2014, during patrolling duty
alongwith Ct. Manjeet, when they reached Gali No. 11 or 13, Ranjit
Nagar, Ct. Manjeet noticed and pointed out towards co-accused
Sunny and stated that he had fled from the spot on the date of
recovery of liquor in the present case. He further deposed that said
accused Sunny was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/E, his
personal search was conducted vide Ex. PW1/F. He further deposed
that on 22.01.2014, samples were deposited by him at the Excise
Lab at ITO vide RC No. 11/21/14 Mark Z and on 05.02.2014, he
collected the Excise Result. He recorded the statement of witnesses
and after completion of the investigation, filed the challan in the
court. Accused Nasiruddin Khan and Sunny both were correctly
identified by him in the court. He deposed that vehicle and its RC
were seized through seizure memo(s). He had correctly identified
the seizure memo of the RC of the car Ex. PW1/G and the vehicle
was seized vide Ex. PW1/H. Furthermore, he had recorded the
disclosure statement of accused Sunny vide memo Ex. PW1/I.
During the testimony of witness, MHC(M) produced one
white sack (plastic katta) duly sealed with the seal and word ‘R’
being visible on the seal. The particulars of FIR No. were marked
with black ink as ’35/14′. The seal was broken open with the
permission of the court and on opening the same, it was found
containing one open katta and two cartons containing quarter liquor
bottles with label “Impact Grain Whiskey For Sale In Haryana
Page No.6 of 25
Digitally
signed by
UDITA
UDITA JAIN
JAIN GARG
Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
15:49:21
+0530
State Vs. Nasiruddin Khan FIR No.35/2014
Only”. The case property was correctly identified by him.
During the testimony of witness, MHC(M) had also produced
one bottle made of glass with label of ” Impact Grain Whiskey For
Sale In Haryana Only”. The bottle was sealed with seal of ‘RTNGR-
I’. It was stated by Malkhana official that the stock of the seized
liquor was destroyed in view of Order no. F. CONF/2018/754-55
dated 25.04.2019 of Assistant Commissioner (Excise). The copy of
the order with copy of Register running in 5 pages was exhibited as
Ex. P-1. Witness correctly identified three photographs of the said
vehicle Ex. P-2.
He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel for
accused Nasiruddin wherein he stated that he received the FIR at
about 08:55 pm. Ct. Chandervir was the beat officer and he was
already at the spot. He deposed that Ct. Chandervir was not the team
member of SI Amit Tyagi and that Ct. Manjeet had handed over the
FIR to him. He testified that he could not tell the DD number vide
which he left the PS. He further deposed that the seized vehicle was
a commercial vehicle. At the spot, two police officials and 2-3
public persons alongwith the accused persons were present. He
deposed that he had requested the public persons to join the
investigation, however, they left the spot without giving their names
and addresses. He deposed that no CCTV camera was installed at or
near the spot.
He denied that no illicit liquor was recovered from the
Page No.7 of 25 Digitally
signed by
UDITA UDITA
JAIN GARG
JAIN Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
15:49:25
+0530
State Vs. Nasiruddin Khan FIR No.35/2014
possession of accused Nasiruddin or that the case property was
falsely planted upon the accused or that all the writing work was
done while sitting at PS.
Despite opportunity, the witness was not cross-examined by
Ld. defence counsel for accused Sandeep @ Sunny.
PW2/SI Amit Kumar was the complainant in the present case,
who deposed that on the fateful day, he alongwith Ct. Manjeet were
on patrolling duty at Madhav Setu, when one secret informer
informed them that one Eco car having registration No.
DL1YD1278 containing illicit liquor might cross the area and could
be apprehended, if a raid is conducted. He further deposed that upon
the direction of SHO PS Ranjit Nagar, he put a picket on Madhav
Setu and had requested 4-5 passerby to join the investigation,
however, they left the spot without giving their names and
addresses. He deposed that due to paucity of time, he could not
serve them any notice. At about 06:30 pm, a white Eco car having
registration No. DL1YD1278 came from Naraina Road, the driver
of the said vehicle stopped the vehicle after seeing the picket 15-20
steps. The driver and one more person came out of the vehicle and
tried to flee from the spot. He managed to apprehend the driver of
the vehicle. Upon checking the vehicle, five plastic kattas were
recovered containing two cartons in each kattas and after checking
each carton, 48 quarter bottles of illicit liquor “Impact Grain Whisky
For Sale In Haryana Only, 180 Ml” was found. He deposed that he
again requested 4-5 passerby to join the investigation, however, they
Digitally
Page No.8 of 25 UDITA
signed by
UDITA
JAIN GARG
JAIN Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
15:49:29
+0530
State Vs. Nasiruddin Khan FIR No.35/2014
left the spot without giving their names and addresses and due to
paucity of time, no notice was given to them. He took out one
sample bottle from each carton and put the remaining quarter bottles
in their respective cartons. He put back all the cartons in their
respective kattas. He covered the mouth of the sample bottles with a
piece of white cloth and sealed them with the seal of ‘RTNGR-III’.
He also sealed the katta with the seal of ‘RTNGR-III’ and seized
both the samples and the kattas vide memo Ex. PW-2/A. Seal after
use was handed over to Ct. Manjeet. He also filled Form M-29 at
the spot, prepared the tehrir and handed over the same to Ct.
Manjeet for registration of FIR Ex.PW-2/B. Ct. Manjeet left the spot
and got the FIR registered and after sometime, he alongwith HC Om
Prakash returned at the spot as further investigation was handed
over to HC Om Prakash after which he was discharged. Both the
accused persons were correctly identified by him in the court. He
deposed that he can identify the case property, if shown to him.
During his testimony, he correctly identified the three
photographs of the case property produced by MHC(M) i.e. Maruti
Eco Car bearing Regn. No. DL1YD1278, Ex. P-1 (colly).
He was duly cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel for
accused Nasiruddin Khan wherein he deposed that he received the
secret information at about 06:15 pm, however, he had not made
entry regarding the secret information as he was on patrolling duty
and was not present at the PS. He answered that he put the picket on
Madhav Setu at about 06:25 pm and Sh. Joginder Singh was the
Digitally
Page No.9 of 25 UDITA
signed by
UDITA
JAIN
JAIN GARG
Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
15:49:33
+0530
State Vs. Nasiruddin Khan FIR No.35/2014
SHO of PS Ranjit Nagar whom he had informed him regarding the
secret information. He replied that he was present at the spot till the
arrival of second IO/HC Om Prakash. Ct. Manjeet had left the spot
with rukka after about 1½ hours after receiving the secret
information and he returned after about an hour with 2 nd IO/HC Om
Prakash. He further deposed that he might have made his arrival
entry after coming to the PS, but he did not remember exactly. He
could not tell whether the seized vehicle Ex. P-2 was a private
vehicle or commercial vehicle or whether it was used for some other
purpose.
He denied that no secret information was received regarding
the illicit liquor or that he had also not put any picket on Madhav
Setu; or that he had not made any effort to join the public persons.
He was also duly cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel for
accused Sandeep @ Sunny, wherein he deposed that he had
prepared the seizure memo in one go and no alteration or
modification was made by him in the said memo. He replied that no
seal handing over memo was prepared after handing over the seal to
Ct. Manjeet Singh.
PW3/Ct. Jai Prakash was working as MHC(M) at PS Ranjit
Nagar. During the testimony of witness, witness had produced
register no. 19 of the year 2014 and had shown mud no. 530. The
copy of same was exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A (OSR).
Despite opportunity, he was not cross-examined by Ld.
Page No.10 of 25 Digitally
signed by
UDITA
UDITA JAIN
JAIN GARG
Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
15:49:38
+0530
State Vs. Nasiruddin Khan FIR No.35/2014
defence counsel for accused Nasiruddin Khan as well as for accused
Sandeep @ Sunny.
PW4/HC Manjeet Kumar was also on patrolling duty
alongwith PW-1 SI Amit Tyagi, who deposed the same as PW-1/SI
Amit Tyagi regarding the proceedings conducted by the 1 st IO. In
addition to the deposition as PW-1/SI Amit Tyagi, he got the FIR
registered. He further deposed that on 27.01.2014 at about 06:00-
06:30 PM, he was informed by a secret informer that co-accused
Sandeep @Sunny could be apprehended from his residential home.
He informed HC Om Prakash about the same and he alongwith
IO/HC Om Prakash went to 2709, Gali No. 13, Ranjit Nagar from
where co-accused Sandeep @Sunny was apprehended.
When a leading question was put by the Ld. APP for the State
he admitted that IO/HC Om prakash also seized the Eco Car
alongwith the RC of the said car vide memo Ex.PW1/H and
Ex.PW1/G respectively.
He was duly cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel for
accused Nasiruddin wherein he deposed that he was the part of
investigation of excise case before the present case, but he did not
remember the number. He answered that the secret information was
received at about 06:15 PM by SI Amit Tyagi and no police official
was present except him and SI Amit Tyagi at that time. He denied
that accused Nasiruddin had disclosed that he was working with
accused Sandeep @Sunny for the supply of illicit liquor and in
Digitally
Page No.11 of 25 UDITA
signed by
UDITA
JAIN GARG
JAIN Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
15:49:42
+0530
State Vs. Nasiruddin Khan FIR No.35/2014
return he got 4000/- extra other than fare charge. He admitted that
the public persons were passing by from the spot and volunteered
that IO had asked some public persons to join the investigation, but
they refused to join the same. He denied that accused Nasiruddin
was lifted from some other place and was falsely implicated in this
case.
He was duly cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel for
accused Sandeep @ Sunny, wherein he stated that he had only
informed regarding the secret information to SHO PS Ranjit Nagar,
but had not given anything in writing to him. He admitted that the
place of apprehension of accused Sandeep @ Sunny was a
residential area and public persons were also passing by and no
notice was served to the public persons, who refused to join the
investigation by the IO.
Thereafter, PE was closed and statement of accused persons
under section 313 of the Code was recorded to afford them an
opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing
against them in evidence. They denied the allegations and pleaded
false implication. Accused Nasiruddin chose to lead DE.
In his defence, accused Nasiruddin examined himself wherein
he deposed that he had been running the taxi for carrying goods on
requisition. The Vehicle no. DL-IYD-1278 was registered in the
name of Mr. Suleman Khan (operator name Sita Ram tour travels).
GPS device receipt No. 031 dated 04.07.2013 was exhibited as
Page No.12 of 25 Digitally
signed by
UDITA UDITA
JAIN GARG
JAIN Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
15:49:46
+0530
State Vs. Nasiruddin Khan FIR No.35/2014Ex.DW1/A. He deposed that there was a booking for Pillar No.208,
Patel Nagar to Gurugram Sec-17. He took the passenger to
Gurugram, Sec-17 and he reached there alongwith accused Sandeep.
After reaching there, accused Sandeep told him to wait for five
minutes as he had to go back to get some luggage. After waiting for
five minutes, accused Sandeep told him that he had to go back with
the luggage at the same place. There was no booking for the later
point. He brought 4-5 luggage and kept the same in the vehicle. In
this connection, two documents were marked as Mark DW1/B
(running two pages) to show this activity and communication details
for booking. Thereafter, at around 9:45-10:15 am, they came back
near the boundary of PS Ranjit Nagar, Delhi. As soon as they sat in
the vehicle, one police personnel came, arrested him and took him
to PS Ranjit Nagar. He deposed that he had been falsely implicated
in the present case.
He was duly cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State
wherein he admitted that vehicle bearing registration number
DL1YD1278 was registered in his name. He admitted that he was
present on the spot but volunteered that he was only taxi driver as
booking was made. He admitted that the documents produced by
him i.e. GPS device receipt dated 04.07.2013 Ex. DWI/A does not
pertain to the date of incident and had no direct relation with the
offence. He admitted that Ex. DW1/A was only showing the
purchase of GPS device. He admitted that he did not have such
device to show that his vehicle bearing registration numberDigitally
Page No.13 of 25 UDITA
signed by
UDITA
JAIN GARG
JAIN Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
15:49:50
+0530
State Vs. Nasiruddin Khan FIR No.35/2014
DL1YD1278 was booked through online booking bearing the
particulars Mark-DW1/B. He denied that he had not apprised the
police of all these facts. He denied that the documents Ex.DW1/A
and documents Mark DW1/B (collectively two pages) were false
and fabricated documents or created to make a defence in the
present case.
I have heard the rival submissions of the learned APP for
State and learned defence counsel and perused the material on
record very carefully.
Arguments:-
It was argued on behalf of the State that prosecution has
proved that accused was found in possession of several quarter
bottles of illicit liquor, in total, without any license. He submitted
that in view of section 52 of the Act, onus lies on the accused to
rebut the presumption, but they failed to rebut the same. He,
therefore, prayed that the accused may be convicted of the charge
levelled against both the accused persons.
Per contra, it was argued on behalf of the accused that a false
case has been foisted against the accused persons and nothing was
recovered from their possession. He submitted that as per the
version of the prosecution, PW2 complainant SI Amit Tyagi and
PW4/HC Manjeet Kumar while patrolling in the area apprehended
the accused Nasiruddin with illicit liquor, however, the departure
entry regarding the patrolling duty, was not proved by the
prosecution. It was also argued that even the identification and arrest
Digitally
Page No.14 of 25 UDITA
signed by
UDITA
JAIN GARG
JAIN Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
15:49:55
+0530
State Vs. Nasiruddin Khan FIR No.35/2014
of co-accused Sandeep@Sunny is suspect and remains unproced.
It is further submitted that all the prosecution witnesses are
interested witnesses and there is no independent corroboration to
their statements.
In view of the above, it is prayed that accused persons may be
acquitted of the charge levelled against them.
Decision and brief reasons for the same:-
Accused Nasiruddin and Sandeep @ Sunny are charged for
the offence punishable under section 33/38 r/w Section 58 of the
Act. Section 33 of the Act provides punishment for possession, sale
etc of any intoxicant. It reads as under:-
“Section 33 – Penalty for unlawful import, export,
transport, manufacture, possession, sale, etc.
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 work; any manufactory or
warehouse;
(c) bottles any liquor or 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 today or tan;
(e) possesses any material or film either with or
without the Government logo or logo of any State
or wrapper or any 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,
Digitally
Page No.15 of 25 signed by
UDITA UDITA
JAIN
JAIN GARG
GARG Date:
2026.02.13
15:49:58
+0530
State Vs. Nasiruddin Khan FIR No.35/2014shall 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 lakh rupees.”
Section 38 of the Act provides Penalty for possession of
liquor unlawfully imported, non-duty paid, etc. It reads as under:-
“Whoever has in his possession any liquor
knowing the same to have been unlawfully
imported, transported or manufactured or knowing
the prescribed duty not to have been paid thereon,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to six months and fine which
may extend to one lakh rupees”.
Section 52(d) of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 states that:-
“Where any animal, vessel, cart or other vehicle is
used in the commission of an offence under this
Act, and is liable to confiscation, the owner
thereof shall be deemed to be guilty of such
offence and such owner shall be liable to be
proceeded against and punished accordingly,
unless he satisfies the court that he had exercised
due care in prevention of the commission of such
an offence.”
It was argued on behalf of the State that since the accused
were found in possession of illicit liquor without any license, the
burden rests on them, to dispel the statutory presumption raised
under section 52 of the Act.
Per contra, it was argued on behalf of the accused that
“presumption” can be invoked against them only if the prosecution
Digitally
Page No.16 of 25 UDITA
signed by
UDITA
JAIN GARG
JAIN Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
15:50:02
+0530
State Vs. Nasiruddin Khan FIR No.35/2014
successfully proves the “recovery” beyond reasonable doubt.
Section 52 of the Act provides for presumption as to
commission of offence in certain cases. It reads as under:-
“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.”
From a bare reading of section 52 of the Act, it is evident that
presumption under section 52 could be drawn only if the factum of
recovery is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Now, let us see whether the recovery of illicit liquor is proved
by the prosecution beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and
whether the presumption of offence alleged to have been committed
by the accused would arise in this case.
Foremost contention of the learned defence counsel was that
as per prosecution PW2 complainant SI Amit Tyagi and PW4/HC
Manjeet Kumar while patrolling apprehended the accused with
illicit liquor, however, the prosecution has not proved the departure
and arrival entries regarding patrolling in the area. He further
contended that had this been true, there ought to have been some
DD entry in the Register, maintained in the police station which has
also not been proved by the prosecution.
As per prosecution, PW2 complainant SI Amit Tyagi and
Digitally
signed by
Page No.17 of 25 UDITA UDITA
JAIN GARG
JAIN Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
15:50:06
+0530
State Vs. Nasiruddin Khan FIR No.35/2014
PW4/HC Manjeet Kumar were patrolling in the area when they
apprehended the accused with illicit liquor.
To appreciate the submission of the learned defence counsel,
it would be advantageous to refer to clause (c) of Rule 22.49
Chapter 22 Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to NCT of Delhi,
which reads as under:-
“(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.”
From the reading of the above mentioned rule, it is evident
that all the police officials irrespective of their rank are bound to
record their arrival and departure entry at the time of leaving their
office.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court while dealing with a similar
situation in the case of Rattan Lal vs. State 32 (1987) DLT 1=1987
(2) Crimes 29 observed as under:-
“If the investigating agency deliberately ignores
to comply with the provisions of the Act, the
courts will have to approach, their action with
reservations. The matter has to be viewed with
suspicion if the provisions of law are not strictly
complied with and the least that can be said is
that it is so done with an oblique motive.”
In the present case, though PW2 complainant SI Amit Tyagi
testified that he alongwith HC Manjeet Kumar were patrolling in the
Page No.18 of 25 Digitally
signed by
UDITA UDITA
JAIN GARG
JAIN Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
15:50:11
+0530
State Vs. Nasiruddin Khan FIR No.35/2014area when they were informed about the accused coming in an Eco
car with illicit liquor. However, no such DD entry, is proved by the
prosecution to establish that PW2 SI Amit Tyagi and PW4/HC
Manjeet Kumar were actually present in the area at the relevant time
in connection with patrolling of the area or that they had set up a
picket to confiscate the illicit liquor. Even on a specific query being
asked by the Ld. Defence Counsel, witness PW-2/SI Amit Tyagi and
PW4/HC Manjeet Kumar failed to state the departure entry number
in their deposition before the court.
In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the
failure by the prosecution to bring on record the DD entries
concerning the departure of the police official for patrolling duty
casts a shadow of doubt on the genuineness of prosecution version
regarding recovery of illicit liquor from the possession of the
accused.
It was argued on behalf of the accused that as per prosecution,
the place from where the recovery was effected was a public place,
but in spite of that, no independent witness was joined by the police
and this fact creates a shadow of doubt on the genuineness of
prosecution case. Learned defence counsel further argued that all the
prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and there is no
independent corroboration to their statements.
It is a settled proposition of law that when independent public
persons are available at the spot and they are not joined in the
investigation by the investigating agency then unless and until any
reasonable and plausible explanation comes from the prosecution as
Digitally
signed by
Page No.19 of 25 UDITA UDITA
JAIN GARG
JAIN Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
15:50:15
+0530
State Vs. Nasiruddin Khan FIR No.35/2014
to why the independent public person was not joined, the case of
prosecution should be seen with reasonable circumspection as it
would be unsafe to believe the story of the prosecution in absence of
the independent public witnesses.
In Ritesh Chakarvarti vs. State 2006(4) RCR (Criminal)
480(SC), no effort was made to join an independent witness despite
availability. The names of the persons from the public, who were
present and asked to join the investigation, were not recorded in any
document. Under these circumstances, it was held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India that the case of the prosecution was
doubtful and ultimately, the accused was acquitted.
The principle of law, laid down in Ritesh Chakarvarti‘s case
(supra) is fully applicable to the instant case.
All the police witnesses testified that they asked several
public persons to join the investigation, but they refused. When
PW2/SI Amit Tyagi and IO/HC Manjeet Kumar were questioned if
any written notice was served upon those public persons, they
answered in negative. No reason was furnished for the failure to
give such notice to the independent witnesses.
As per prosecution, the place from where the recovery was
effected was a public place, yet no witness from the public was
associated with the recovery. Failure to join witnesses from the
public especially when they are available casts shadow of doubt on
the prosecution case regarding recovery of illicit liquor from the
possession of accused.
Digitally
signed by
Page No.20 of 25 UDITA UDITA
JAIN GARG
JAIN Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
15:50:18
+0530
State Vs. Nasiruddin Khan FIR No.35/2014
Case property not produced before the court for evidence:-
It was contended by the learned defence counsel that the
entire lot of case property i.e. the liquor bottles were never produced
before the court for the purpose of identification.
He, therefore, prayed that an adverse inference should be
drawn from the failure to produce the entire lot of case property
which was allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused.
In reply, it is submitted by the learned APP for the State that
entire case property could not be produced as the same has already
been destroyed vide order Ex. P.1. He submitted that as directed by
the Hon’ble Superior courts, sample bottle was produced during the
course of trial and the said sample bottle was duly identified by the
witnesses.
He also drew the attention of the court towards Ex. P.1
wherein it is stated that case property has been destroyed as per
Section 60 of the Act provides for destruction of the intoxicants. It
reads as under:-
“60. Order of confiscation and destruction not to
interfere with other punishment (1) The order of
confiscation under section 58 shall not prevent
imposition of any other punishment to which a
person is liable under this Act.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force, the disposal
of confiscated goods in the manner, thereby non-
production of case property before the trial court,
shall not affect the conviction for an offence
under this Act:
PROVIDED that the samples of the intoxicants
and the photographs of the confiscated property
Digitally
signed by
Page No.21 of 25 UDITA UDITA
JAIN
JAIN GARG
Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
15:50:23
+0530
State Vs. Nasiruddin Khan FIR No.35/2014
may be preserved to meet the evidentiary
requirements.”
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Manjeet Singh
vs. State while dealing with liquor and narcotic drugs, held as
under:-
“74. Prompt action should be taken in disposal of
the liquor bottles/pouches and narcotic drugs after
preparing a detailed panchnama containing an
inventory; retaining a sample thereof; taking
photographs of the entire lot of seized
bottles/pouches/narcotic drugs and security bond.
The sample shall be kept properly after sending it
to the chemical analyst, if required.
75. The sample along with the photographs of the
case property and the panchnama would be
sufficient evidence at the stage of trial.”
In the case in hand, neither the photographs of the entire lot of
seized bottles nor the inventory as directed by the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in the case of Manjeet Singh (supra) is placed on
record.
As per the prosecution version, seizure memo of the liquor
was prepared at the spot prior to registration of the FIR. However,
this document bears the number of the FIR.
Prosecution has failed to explain as to under what
circumstances number of the FIR has appeared on the top of the
seizure memo which was allegedly prepared before sending the
rukka i.e. before registration of the FIR. Reliance may be placed on
a judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of
Pawan Kumar vs. the Delhi Administration 1989 Crl. L.J 127
wherein it was held as under:-
Digitally
signed by
UDITA
Page No.22 of 25 UDITA JAIN
JAIN GARG
Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
15:50:27
+0530
State Vs. Nasiruddin Khan FIR No.35/2014
“In the normal circumstances, the FIR number
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 FIR number 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.”
As per prosecution witnesses, four cartons of illicit liquor
were recovered from the possession of accused. The bottles were
seized after taking out one quarter bottle as sample each. The
sample bottles and the katta containing remaining bottles were
sealed with the seal of i.e “RTNGR-III”. However, only one katta
containing two cartons of illicit liquor was produced before the
Court alongwith a lone sample bottle during evidence in the court
were found sealed with the seal of “R” and “RTNGR-I”.
How and when the seal got changed is a mystery shrouded
with doubts which has not been explained by the prosecution.
Next, it is submitted by the learned defence counsel that link
evidence concerning the seal movement is not established by the
prosecution.
As per the IO, the seal after use was handed over to HC
Manjeet Kumar, however, as is evident and even as per deposition
of IO/HC Om Prakash (now ASI), no handing over or returning
Digitally
signed by
Page No.23 of 25 UDITA UDITA
JAIN
JAIN GARG
Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
15:50:31
+0530
State Vs. Nasiruddin Khan FIR No.35/2014
memo of the seal was placed on record. Therefore, I am of the
considered opinion that link evidence concerning the seal movement
was missing in this present case, which fact by itself is sufficient to
cast a shadow a doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution case.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Safiullah vs.
State (Delhi Administration) (1993) DLT 193= (25) DRJ 248 held as
under:-
“The seal after use were kept by the police
officials themselves…….therefore the possibility
of tampering with the contents of the parcel
cannot be ruled out. ……”
It is further pertinent to mention here that the accused
Sandeep was not arrested from the spot and his identification was
based on the version of PW4 Ct. Manjeet, as per the chargesheet,
however, the said witness made no such averment during his
deposition in court. The said statement is also not reflected in the
testimony of PW2 SI Amit Kumar who was also on patrolling duty
along-with PW4 Ct. Manjeet on the date of the incident.
Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding the arrest of accused
Sandeep are also riddled with contradictions. While the witness PW
1 HC Om Prakash in his deposition before the court testified that it
was during patrolling duty that Ct. Manjeet identified accused
Sandeep as an accused in the present case, P4 Ct. Manjeet deposed
that he received a secret information pertaining to the location of
accused Sandeep and on the basis of the same he arrested the
accused along-with HC Om Prakash.
All these facts taken together create doubt on the entire warp
Digitally
signed by
Page No.24 of 25 UDITA UDITA
JAIN GARG
JAIN Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
15:50:35
+0530
State Vs. Nasiruddin Khan FIR No.35/2014
and woof of the prosecution story regarding recovery of illicit liquor
from the possession of accused.
Result:-
On overall appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence
on record, I am of the view that the recovery of alleged liquor from
the possession of accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt;
therefore, there is no presumption under section 52 of the Act.
Consequently, accused Nasiruddin Khan and Sandeep @
Sunny are ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court on 13th day of February, 2026
Digitally signed
UDITA by UDITA JAIN
GARG
JAIN Date:2026.02.13
GARG 15:50:40
+0530(Udita Jain Garg)
ACJM/West District
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
13.02.2026This judgment contains 25 pages and each page bears my signature.
Digitally
UDITA signed by
UDITA JAIN
GARG
JAIN Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
15:50:44
+0530(Udita Jain Garg)
ACJM/West District
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
13.02.2026Page No.25 of 25
