Delhi District Court
State vs Shyam Vir on 23 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09 (SOUTH-WEST) DWARKA
COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Shyam Vir
FIR No : 264/2023
U/s : 33 Delhi Excise Act
P.S. : Jafarpur Kalan
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW022410682024
2. Date of commission of offence : 21.12.2023
3. Date of institution of the case : 21.10.2024
: Ct. Vimal Kumar
4. Name of the complainant
Meena
5. Name of accused, parentage & : Shyam Vir
address S/o Balwan Singh
R/o H. no.75, Village
Ghuman Hera,
Chhawala Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : 33 of Delhi Excise Act
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of final order : 23.02.2026
Argued by:- Mr. Parvez Alam, Ld. APP for the State
Mr. Sourabh Yadav, Ld. Counsel for accused.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No. 264/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Shyam Vir Page 1 of 17 Date:
AHLAWAT 2026.02.23
15:12:07
+0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 21.12.2023 at
about 09:45 am, at Old Dhaba, Near Ghuman Hera Bus Depot,
Dariyapur Khurd, New Delhi, accused was found in possession
of illicit liquor i.e. 103 quarter bottles of ADS Motta Masaledar
Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only, without having valid
licence or permit in that regard and thereby committed the
offence punishable under Section 33 of Delhi Excise Act, for
which FIR no.264/2023 was registered at the police station
Jafarpur Kalan, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer
(hereinafter, “IO”) undertook investigation and on culmination of
the same, the chargesheet against the accused person was filed.
This court took the cognizance against the accused person and
summons were issued to the accused. On his appearance, a copy
of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused in terms of section
207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter,
“CrPC“). On finding a prima facie case against the accused
person, charge under Section 33 of Delhi Excise Act was framed
against the accused on 15.01.2025. The accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Date:
FIR No. 264/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Shyam Vir Page 2 of 17 AHLAWAT 2026.02.23
15:12:28
+0530
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and
documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt:-
ORAL EVIDENCE
PW-1 Ct. Vimal Kumar Complainant
PW-2 HC Makhan Lal Investigating Officer
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex.PW1/A Seizure memo qua illicit liquor
Ex.PW1/B Site plan
Ex.PW1/C Disclosure statement of accused
Ex.PW1D Arrest memo
Ex.PW1/E Personal search memo
Ex.P1 Case property
Ex.PW2/A Statement of complainant
Ex.PW2/B Form M-29
Ex.PW2/C Rukka
ADMITTED DOCUMENTS
Ex.A1 FIR no.264/2023 alongwith certificate u/S
65B of Indian Evidence Act
Ex.A2 DD no.21A and 34A
Ex.A3 Excise result
Ex.A4 RC no.6/21/24 dated 04.01.2024
Ex.A5 Entry in register no.19
4. To prove its case, prosecution examined the following witnesses,
the same are as follows.
PW1 Ct. Vimal Kumar deposed that on 21.12.2023, he was on
patrolling at the area of beat no.8 and 9 of PS J. P. Kalan and
when he reached near Ghuman Hera Bus Depot, he saw one
person was coming towards the side of Ghuman Hera Bus Depot
from Jhuljhulli Mor and he kept heavy plastic katta on his
shoulder. He stated that upon seeing him, he turned back and
started walking with steady steps and he stopped him and upon
asking about the plastic katta, he could not give any satisfactory
reply of the same and upon checking it was found containing
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Date:
FIR No. 264/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Shyam Vir Page 3 of 17 AHLAWAT 2026.02.23
15:12:34
+0530
quarter bottles of illicit liquor. He further stated that upon
inquiry, he came to know details of apprehended person were as
Shyamvir S/o Balwan Singh and he shared the said information
with DO of PS and HC Makhan Lal reached to the spot and he
produced the accused alongwith recovered illicit liquor before
him. He further stated that IO asked 4-5 persons to join the
investigation but none of them agreed to join the same and no
notice was served upon them due to paucity of time. He further
stated that IO checked the plastic katta and upon counting, 103
quarter bottles of ADS Motta Masaledar Desi Sharab for sale in
Haryana only 180 ml. each were recovered and ADS Sprits Pvt.
Ltd. Bhutian Excise were written on each cap of recovered
bottles. He further stated that IO took three quarter bottles as
sample and put back remaining quarter bottle into same plastic
katta. He further stated that IO tied the opening of plastic katta as
well as samples with a piece of white cloth and sealed with the
seal of MK. He further stated that IO filled M-29 form at the spot
and handed over the seal after use to him and IO seized the
recovered illicit liquor vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. He further
stated that IO prepared tehrir and got the FIR registered through
him. He further stated that IO prepared the site plan of the place
of incident at his instance Ex.PW1/B, interrogated accused and
recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW1/C, arrested him vide
arrest memo Ex.PW1/D and conducted his personal search vide
personal search memo Ex.PW1/E. He further stated that they
shifted the case property as well as accused to PS and case
property alongwith relevant documents were deposited in
malkhana and accused was sent to lockup after conducting his
medical examination. The witness correctly identified accused
present before the court and the case property as Ex.P1 (colly). In
Digitally
signed by
ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No. 264/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Shyam Vir Page 4 of 17 AHLAWAT Date:
2026.02.23
15:12:39
+0530
the cross-examination, he stated that he made departure entry
while going for performing duty but he did not remember
whether he mentioned the motorcycle number or not. He further
stated that he reached at the spot at around 08:30 am from
Ghumenhera Village to Jhuljhulli Mor and he saw accused for
the first time on a stall in front of school on Ghumenhera Village
to Jhuljhulli Mor and he gave information at PS from his
personal mobile phone at around 09:40 am. He further stated that
IO came at the spot within 10-12 minutes on motorcycle but he
did not remember whether it was government or personal
motorcycle. He further stated that there was one dhaba and one
stall at the spot but it was closed at that time. He further stated
that depot was located at a distance of around 300 meters from
the spot and Ghumenhera Village was located at a distance of
around one kilometer from the spot. He further stated that he and
IO took the case property to PS and IO might have made the
arrival entry but he had not made the same. He further stated that
accused was got medically examined and he took him to hospital
but he did not remember the time. He further stated that no
CCTV cameras were installed the spot and at that time, he was
using smart phone but he did not take any photograph or video of
the spot and neither the same was done by the IO. He further
stated that the site plan was prepared after registration of FIR and
site plan, Form no.29 and rukka were prepared in his presence.
He further stated that no public persons came at the spot at that
time and IO did not prepare any seal handing over memo while
handing over seal to him and he deposited the said seal with
MHC (M) and he did not prepare any seal take over memo.
Digitally
signed by
ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT
Page 5 of 17
Date:
FIR No. 264/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Shyam Vir 2026.02.23
15:12:46
+0530
5. PW2 HC Makhan Lal deposed that on 21.12.2023, he received
DD no.34A regarding apprehension of illicit liquor and
thereafter, he went to old dhaba near Ghumanhera Bus Depot
where he met with Ct. Vimal and accused Shyam Vir. He stated
that Ct. Vimal told him that while patrolling he found accused
carrying illicit liquor and he recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A.
He further stated that Ct. Vimal handed over the custody of
accused and illicit liquor to him and he checked the plastic katta
which was having 103 quarter bottles of illicit liquor with label
of ADS Motta Masaledar Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only.
He further stated that he took out three quarter bottles as sample
and sealed the same with the seal of NK and separately sealed the
remaining bottles. He further stated that he prepared the seizure
memo, filled Form M-29 Ex.PW2/B and prepared rukka
Ex.PW2/C and got the FIR registered through Ct. Vimal. He
further stated that he prepared the site plan at the instance of Ct.
Vimal, he arrested accused, conducted his personal search and
recorded his disclosure statement. He further stated that case
property and accused person were taken to PS and case property
was deposited with MHC (M). He further stated that during
investigation, he sent samples of this case to Excise Lab for
chemical examination and later on received result of the same
and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet
before the concerned court. The witness correctly identified
accused present before the court and the case property as Ex.P1
(colly). In the cross-examination, he stated that he received DD
entry around 09:50 am from Duty Officer and he reached at the
spot around 10:10 am. He further stated that he tried to join
public persons at the spot but no one agreed and left the spot but
he did not serve any notice upon those public persons. He further
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
ABHINAV Date:
AHLAWAT
FIR No. 264/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Shyam Vir Page 6 of 17 2026.02.23
15:12:52
+0530
stated that one school, college, dispensary, bus depot, hockey
ground, transport authority were near the spot. He further stated
that the spot was busy area and several public persons passes
from there. He further stated that all the witnesses in the list of
witnesses were police officials and nothing was recovered from
personal search of accused. He further stated that the illicit liquor
was recovered from possession of accused and that fact was told
to him by Ct. Vimal. He further stated that he had brought his
seal with him and he did not prepare any seal handing over
memo. He further stated that accused was arrested about 12:15
pm and he was carrying smart phone at the time of incident. He
further stated that he did not take any photograph or prepare any
video of the spot. He further stated that no CCTV camera was
installed near the spot covering the spot and he remained at the
spot for about two and half hours. He further stated that he went
to the spot in government gypsy and he did not make any
investigation with respect to the batch number of the bottles and
no document was filed with the charge-sheet in that regard. He
further stated that total weight of 103 bottles as seized from the
possession of accused must be of around 30-40 kg in weight.
6. On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C, remaining in
the prosecution list were dropped and the formal proof of the
documents sought to be proved by them was dispensed with. No
other PW was left to be examined, hence, PE was closed.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE
EVIDENCE
7. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow
the accused person to personally explain the incriminating
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Date:
FIR No. 264/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Shyam Vir Page 7 of 17 AHLAWAT 2026.02.23
15:12:57
+0530
circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement
of the accused person was recorded without oath under section
281 r/w 313 CrPC, wherein he stated that he was innocent and
was falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that
he does not want to lead defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
8. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the
accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration
to the material appearing on record.
9. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of
the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that
prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the
commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their
testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence
has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is
prayed that the accused be punished for the said offence.
10. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the
State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Ld. Counsel further argued that the entire case of the
prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from
the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from
the material on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed
to discharge the burden cast upon it . As such, it is prayed that the
accused be acquitted for the said offence.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Page 8 of 17
Date:
FIR No. 264/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Shyam Vir AHLAWAT 2026.02.23
15:13:03
+0530
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
11. In order to sustain conviction under Section 33 of Delhi Excise
Act, prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients:
(i) Accused was found in possession of the illicit liquor and
(ii) He was possessing the same without any licence / permit.
12. The accused has been charged for the offence of possessing illicit
liquor under Section 33 of Delhi Excise Act in the present case.
The prosecution has also required to prove that the accused was
possessing the illicit liquor without having any licence/ permit in
that regard.
13. It is also significant to note that Section 52 of Delhi Excise Act
lays down a rebuttable presumption which goes as follows:
“Section 52. Presumption as to commission of offence in certain
cases:
1. In prosecution under Section 33, it shall be presumed, until the
contrary is proved, that the accused person has committed the
offence punishable under that section in respect of any intoxicant,
still, utensil, implement or apparatus, for the possession of which
he is unable to account satisfactorily.
2. ………”
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
14. It is trite law that the burden always lies upon the prosecution to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable
evidence and that the law does not permit the court to punish the
accused on the basis of moral conviction or on account of
suspicion alone. Also, it is well settled that accused is entitled to
the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Date:
AHLAWAT 2026.02.23
FIR No. 264/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Shyam Vir Page 9 of 17 15:13:09
+0530
such doubt entitles him to acquittal. The words “for the
possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily” used
in Section 52(1) of the Delhi Excise Act clearly reveal that as a
pre-requisite for the presumption under the aforesaid provision
being raised against the accused, it is imperative for the
prosecution to successfully establish the recovery of the said
alleged articles from the possession of the accused.
It is only after the prosecution has proved the possession of
the alleged articles by the accused, that the accused can be called
upon to account for the same. However, as discussed hereinafter,
careful scrutiny of the evidence placed on record brings to light
the fact that the case of the prosecution is fraught with multiple
inconsistencies, rendering the prosecution version incredible,
owing to which, no presumption, as provided for under Section
52 of the Act, can be raised against the accused in the present
case.
The non-joining of any independent / public witness.
15. It is evident from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that
no public witness to the recovery of the liquor has been either
cited in the list of prosecution witnesses or has been examined by
the prosecution. Apparently, PW1 stated in his cross-examination
that no public persons came at the spot at that time. PW2 stated
in his cross-examination that he tried to join public persons at the
spot but no one agreed and left the spot and he did not serve any
notice upon those public persons. He further stated that one
school, college, dispensary, bus depot, hockey ground, transport
authority were situated near the spot and the spot was busy area
and several public persons passes from there. Thus, it is not the
Digitally
signed by
ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No. 264/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Shyam Vir Page 10 of 17 AHLAWAT Date:
2026.02.23
15:13:15
+0530
case of prosecution that public witnesses were not available at the
spot. However, from a perusal of the record, no serious effort for
joining public witnesses appears to have been made by the
investigating officer. These facts are squarely covered by the
ruling of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as,
Anoop Joshi Vs. State” 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), wherein it
was observed as under:
“………18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases
it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been
made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is
evidence that no such sincere efforts have been made,
particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two
shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding
party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In
case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding
party, the police could have later on taken legal action against
such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the
rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to
assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an
offence under the IPC.”
16. Further, in a case law reported as Roop Chand v. The State of
Haryana, 1999 (1) C.L.R. 69, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High
Court held as under:
“……..The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the
possession of the petitioner during noon time and it is in the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses
from the public were available and they were asked to join the
investigation. The explanation furnished by the prosecution is
that the independent witnesses were asked to join the
investigation but they refused to do so on the ground that their
joining will result into enmity between them and the
petitioner.”
17. It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating agency
should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of
contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so
in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution
case. In the present case also admittedly, the independent
Digitally
signed by
ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No. 264/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Shyam Vir Page 11 of 17 AHLAWAT Date:
2026.02.23
15:13:20
+0530
witnesses were available at the time of recovery but no serious
efforts were undertaken by the investigating agency to join them.
This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police
officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have
not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to
join it is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the
public refused to join the investigation. A police officer
conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to
join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public
the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person
under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the
public had refused to join the investigation, the IO must have
proceeded against them under the relevant provision of law. The
failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that
the explanation for non- joining the witnesses from the public is
an afterthought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts
taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful.
18. In fact, in this regard, Section 100 of the Cr.P.C also accords
assistance to the aforesaid finding, by providing that whenever
any search is made, two or more independent and respectable
inhabitants of the locality are required to be made witnesses to
such search, and the search is to be made in their presence.
Under Section 100(8) Cr.P.C, refusal to be a witness can
render such non-willing public witness liable for criminal
prosecution. Despite the availability of such a provision, no
sincere attempts were made by the police to join witnesses in the
present case. Therefore, non-compliance of the mandatory
provisions of law, even though public witnesses were easily
Digitally
signed by
ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2026.02.23
Page 12 of 17
15:13:25
FIR No. 264/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Shyam Vir +0530
available in the vicinity, makes the prosecution version highly
doubtful.
19. This court is conscious of the legal position that non-joining of
independent witnesses cannot be the sole ground to discard or
doubt the prosecution case, as has been held in Appabhai and
another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. However,
evidence in every case is to be sifted through in light of the
varied facts and circumstances of each individual case. As
observed above, the testimony of the police witnesses in the
present case is not worthy of credit. In such a situation, evidence
of an independent witness would have rendered the much-needed
corroborative value, to the otherwise uncompelling case of the
prosecution, as discussed above, and hereinafter.
Possibility of misuse of seal of the investigating officer
20. As per the version of the prosecution witnesses, after sealing the
case property and the samples of illicit liquor with the seal of
“MK”, the same was handed over to Ct. Vimal Kumar. However,
Ct. Vimal Kumar was a part of the investigation in the present
case. Moreover, it is stated by PW1 that IO did not prepare any
seal handing over memo while handing over seal to him and he
deposited the said seal with MHC (M) and he did not prepare any
seal taking over memo. Moreover, the seal handing over memo
has not been prepared. Therefore, the circumstances under which
the seal was obtained and used is under a shadow of doubt.
As such, the seal was never handed over to any
independent witness. There is nothing on record to suggest that
IO had made efforts to handover the seal to any independent
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
ABHINAV Date:
AHLAWAT 2026.02.23
FIR No. 264/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Shyam Vir Page 13 of 17 15:13:32
+0530
witness. In addition to this, there is no taking over or handing
over memo on record to show as to when the seal was taken back
from MHC (M) or if it remained with him forever. This assumes
great significance owing to the fact that the sample was sent to
Excise Lab only on 04.01.2024, i.e. after a period of fourteen
days from the date of alleged seizure i.e. 21.12.2023. The
possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled
out. Moreover, it is not even the case of the prosecution that the
seal was not within the reach of the IO and thus, there was no
scope of tampering of case property.
21. In this regard, judgment in case titled as Ramji Singh Vs. State of
Haryana 2007 (3) RCR (CRIMINAL) 452, may be adverted to,
wherein it was observed in paragraph 7 that:
“….The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person is
to avoid tampering of the case property. It is well settled that
till the case property is not dispatched to the forensic science
laboratory, the seal should not be available to the prosecuting
agency and in the absence of such a safeguard the possibility
of seal, contraband and the samples being tampered with
cannot be ruled out. In the present case, the seal of
Investigating Officer-Hoshiar Singh bearing impression HS
was available with Maha Singh, a junior police official and
that of Deputy Superintendent of Police remained with Deputy
Superintendent of Police himself. Therefore, the possibility of
tampering with seals as well as seized contraband and samples
cannot be ruled out.”
22. Similarly, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Safiullah v. State,
(1993) 49 DLT 193, had observed:
“9. … The seal after use were kept by the police officials
themselves therefore the possibility of tempering with the
contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out. It was
very essential for the prosecution to have established from
stage to stage the fact that the sample was not tempered
with. The prosecution could have proved from the CFSL
form itself and from the road certificate as to what articles
were taken from the Malkahana. Once a doubt is created in
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
ABHINAV Date:
FIR No. 264/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Shyam Vir Page 14 of 17 AHLAWAT 2026.02.23
15:13:37
+0530
the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same
should go to the accused…”….
11. It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the seal
after use was handed over to the independent witness
P.W.5. Even the I.O. P.W.7 does not utter a word
regarding the handing over of the seal after use. Therefore,
the conclusion which can be arrived at is that the seal
remained with the Investigating Officer or with the other
member of the raiding party therefore the possibility of
interference or tempering of the seal and the contents of
the parcel cannot be ruled out….”
23. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, the possibility of misuse
of seal and tampering of case property cannot be ruled out.
Other infirmities in the prosecution case
24. Furthermore, doubts are raised with respect to false implication of
accused person from the fact that although all the prosecution
witnesses remained at the spot for considerable period of time but
no photographs of the case property or the spot were taken. No
efforts were taken to lift chance prints of the accused person from
the illicit liquor which could have lend credence to the
prosecution version.
25. Further, fact of the accused being present at the spot is also
shrouded with clouds of ambiguity and cast doubt over the actual
presence of the accused at the spot as no credible piece of
evidence has been brought by the prosecution, rendering the
version of the prosecution unworthy of credit and giving rise to
the suspicion that the accused person has been falsely implicated
in the present case.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Date:
AHLAWAT 2026.02.23
FIR No. 264/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Shyam Vir Page 15 of 17 15:13:43
+0530
CONCLUSION
26. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution
has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading
reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. It is a settled
proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring
home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand
on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from
the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Accused is
entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the
prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case
entitles the accused to acquittal.
27. There is no gainsaying that if two reasonably probable and evenly
balanced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily
concede to the existence of a reasonable doubt. The
aforementioned lacunae in the story of the prosecution render the
version of the prosecution doubtful, leading to the irresistible
conclusion that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt has not been discharged by the
prosecution. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the
prosecution has failed to bring on record any cogent evidence in
order to prove the commission of and guilt of the accused for
offence u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt,
thus, entitling the accused person to benefit of doubt and
acquittal.
28. Accordingly, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the
accused for the offence u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act and holds the
accused not guilty of commission of the said offence. Accused
Digitally
signed by
ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2026.02.23
FIR No. 264/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Shyam Vir Page 16 of 17 15:13:48
+0530
Shyam Vir is thus, acquitted of the offence u/s 33 of Delhi Excise
Act.
Announced in the open court Digitally
signed by
ABHINAV
on 23.02.2026 in the presence ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT
Date:
of Ld. Counsel for accused 2026.02.23
15:13:52
+0530
through VC.
(Abhinav Ahlawat)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-09,
Dwarka, Delhi/23.02.2026
Note:- This judgment contains 17 pages and each page has been
signed by me. Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
ABHINAV Date:
AHLAWAT 2026.02.23
15:13:58
+0530
(Abhinav Ahlawat)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-09,
Dwarka, Delhi/23.02.2026
FIR No. 264/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Shyam Vir Page 17 of 17
