Delhi District Court
State vs Seema@Soma on 9 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF RISHABH KAPOOR, JUDICAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-01 NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS: DELHI State Vs. : Seema @ Sona FIR No : 36/2020 U/s : 33 Delhi Excise Act P.S. : Bhalswa Dairy JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Case No. : 2972/2023 2. Date of commission of offence : 16.01.2020 3. Date of institution of the case : 15.03.2023 4. Name of the complainant : State 5. Name and parentage of accused : Seema @ Soma w/o Sh. Sunil 6. Offense complained or proved : Section 33 Delhi Excise Act 7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty 8. Date on which order was reserved : 07.04.2026 9. Final order : Acquitted 10. Date of final order : 09.04.2026 State Vs. Seema FIR No. 36/2020 PS Bh. Dairy 1/16
1. The accused is facing trial for offence u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act. The genesis of
the prosecution story is that on 16.01.2020 at about 07:10 PM at Kacchi Gali No.8,
Swaroop Nagar Extension near Sheetal Dharam Kanta, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi, the
accused was found in possession of one bag, which contained 110 quarter bottles of
liquor make “Falcons Santra Deshi Sharab for Sale in Haryana Only”, without any
license or permit or authority. The criminal law was set into motion by registration of
FIR against the accused and investigation into the case began. After completion of the
investigation, the present chargeÂsheet was filed for conducting trial of the accused for
the alleged offences.
2. After taking cognizance of the offences, the copy of chargeÂsheet was supplied
to accused in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. The arguments on charges were heard
and charge for offence u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act was framed against accused. The
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed and trial. Thereafter, prosecution evidence
was led.
3. In order to prove allegations against accused, prosecution has examined five
prosecution witnesses.
4. The proceedings u/s 294 Cr.P.C. were conducted wherein accused admitted
fact of recording of DD No. 42 dated 16.01.2020 (Ex.AÂ1), DD No. 44 dated
16.01.2020 (Ex.AÂ2), FIR (Ex.AÂ3), Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act (Ex.AÂ
4), Excise Report (Ex.AÂ5) and relevant entries in Register no. 19 and 21 (Ex.AÂ6).
Pursuant to the admission made by accused of these documents, witnesses at Sr. No.4
to 7 were dropped from the list of witness.
5. Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the
prosecution case and their testimony has remained unrebutted. It has been further
argued that on the combined reading of the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses,
offence u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act has been proved beyond doubt.
State Vs. Seema FIR No. 36/2020 PS Bh. Dairy
2/16
6. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has stated that there is no legally
sustainable evidence against the accused and that the accused has been falsely
implicated by the police officials and the recovery of illicit liquor has been planted
upon her. Arguing further, Ld. counsel has interÂalia submitted that no public
witnesses were joined by the police officials during investigation and no recovery
photographs were also taken on record by the investigating officer. It is further argued
that due to the lacunae and incoherency in the story of the prosecution, accused be
given the benefit of doubt and is therefore, entitled to be acquitted.
7. Prior to delving into the contentions raised by the prosecution and defence, let
us discuss the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses in brief.
(i). PWÂ1 Ct. Sandeep deposed that on 16.01.2020, while posted at PS Bhalswa
Dairy and on patrolling duty with W/Ct. Rekha, at about 7:10 PM near Sheetal
Dharamkanta, Kachchi Gali No. 8, Swaroop Nagar Extension, they noticed a lady
carrying a plastic katta on her head. He further deposed that on seeing the police, the
said lady got nervous and attempted to flee, whereupon she was apprehended and on
enquiry, she disclosed her name as Seema @ Soma. He further deposed that upon
checking the katta, illicit liquor was found. He further deposed that information was
conveyed to the PS, whereupon IO HC Ramesh Kumar reached the spot and the
accused and case property were handed over to him. He further deposed that IO
checked the katta and found 110 quarter bottles of illicit liquor labeled “Falcon Santra
Deshi Sharab for sale in Haryana.” He further deposed that two bottles were taken as
samples, sealed with the seal of “RK,” and remaining property was also sealed. He
further deposed that the katta and samples were assigned serial numbers and seizure
memo Ex. PW1/B and Form MÂ29 were prepared. He further stated that IO requested
public persons to join investigation but none agreed. He further deposed that seal after
use was handed over to him. He further deposed that tehrir was prepared by the IO
State Vs. Seema FIR No. 36/2020 PS Bh. Dairy
3/16
and handed over to him for registration of FIR. He further deposed that after
registration, he returned to the spot and handed over rukka and copy of FIR to IO. He
proved his statement Ex. PW1/A, seizure memo Ex. PW1/B, site plan Ex. PW1/C and
identified the case property as well as sample bottle (Ex. PÂ1) and photographs (Ex. PÂ
2). In crossÂexamination, he admitted that no notice was served upon public persons
and that no photography/videography was conducted. He further admitted that no
handing over memo of seal was prepared.
(ii). PWÂ2 HC Pradeep Singh deposed that on 15.06.2021, while posted at PS
Bhalswa Dairy, investigation of the present case was marked to him and upon perusal
of the file, he found investigation was complete and accordingly, prepared the chargeÂ
sheet and filed the same before the Court.
(iii). PWÂ3 W/Ct. Rekha corroborated the testimony of PWÂ1. She stated that on
16.01.2020, while on patrolling duty with Ct. Sandeep, they noticed a lady carrying a
plastic katta who tried to escape on seeing police. She further deposed that the said
lady was apprehended and disclosed her name as Seema @ Soma. She deposed that
Ct. Sandeep checked the katta and found illicit liquor and information was given to PS
and IO/HC Ramesh Kumar reached the spot. She further deposed that IO checked the
katta containing 110 quarter bottles of illicit liquor, took samples, sealed them with
seal of “RK,” and prepared necessary documents. She further stated that public
persons were asked to join investigation but they refused to do so. She further deposed
that the case property was deposited in Malkhana. She identified the accused and case
property (Ex. PÂ1 and PÂ2). In her crossÂexamination, she admitted that no public
persons were joined and no photography/videography was done. She also admitted
that no handing over memo of seal was prepared.
(iv). PWÂ4 ASI Rajesh deposed that on 05.03.2020, while posted at PS Bhalswa
Dairy, he collected the case property from MHC(M) for depositing the same in the
Excise Lab vide RC No. 43/21/20. He stated that the case property remained intact
and was not tampered with while in his custody. In crossÂexamination, he stated that
State Vs. Seema FIR No. 36/2020 PS Bh. Dairy
4/16
RC did not bear his signatures though it bore his name. He denied that chain of
custody was broken or that the case property was tampered with.
(v). PWÂ5 ASI Ramesh Kumar was the IO in the present case. He deposed that on
16.01.2020, upon receipt of DD entry, he reached the spot where Ct. Sandeep and
W/Ct. Rekha had apprehended the accused Seema @ Soma along with illicit liquor.
He further deposed that he recorded statement of Ct. Sandeep (Ex. PW1/A). He stated
that he checked the katta containing 110 quarter bottles of illicit liquor, took two
samples, sealed them with seal of “RK,” and sealed remaining property. He filled
Form MÂ29 (Ex. PW5/A), prepared seizure memo Ex. PW1/B and handed over seal to
Ct. Sandeep. He further deposed that He prepared tehrir Ex. PW5/B and sent Ct.
Sandeep for registration of FIR. He further deposed that after registration, copy of FIR
and rukka were received back and thereafter, he served notice u/s 41A CrPC upon
accused (Ex. PW5/C), prepared site plan Ex. PW1/C, and bound down the accused
vide Ex. PW5/D. He further deposed that case property was deposited in Malkhana
and later sent to Excise Lab through HC Rajesh. He further deposed that he recorded
statements of witnesses. In his crossÂexamination, he admitted that no public persons
were joined, and that no photography/videography was conducted. He further
admitted that no handing over memo of seal was prepared.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.:
8. The statement of the accused u/s Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded separately in
which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to her. The
accused controverted and denied the allegations levelled against her and stated that
she has been falsely implicated in the case. Accused further opted not to lead
evidence in her defence, hence, DE was closed.
State Vs. Seema FIR No. 36/2020 PS Bh. Dairy
5/16
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:
9. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by
both the parties. Accused Seema @ Soma has been indicted for the offence u/s 33 of
Delhi Excise Act.
10. In order to prove the offence under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, the
prosecution must establish the fulfilment of all the essential ingredients of the offence.
The contents of Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act are reproduced as follows:
“33. Penalty for unlawful import, export, transport, manufacture, possession,
sale, etc. ÂÂ
1. 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 works any manufactory or warehouse;
c. bottles any liquor for 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
toddy or tari;
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, shall 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 lath rupees.”
State Vs. Seema FIR No. 36/2020 PS Bh. Dairy
6/16
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. ………”
11. It is a 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 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
preÂrequisite 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.
i). Doubtful Seizure Memo and Form MÂ29.
State Vs. Seema FIR No. 36/2020 PS Bh. Dairy
7/16
12. A careful reading of the testimony of PWÂ1, PWÂ3 and PWÂ5 (IO) reflects that
the IO had seized the illicit liquor vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B and filled in the
Form MÂ29 Ex.PW5/A, both at the spot and thereafter, had prepared the rukka Ex.
PW5/B and handed over the same to Ct. Sandeep for registration of FIR. The
narration of such a chronology of events leads to the irresistible conclusion that the
seizure memo of the liquor and Form MÂ29 were prepared at the spot prior to the
rukka being sent to the police station for registration of the FIR and that the FIR was,
therefore, admittedly registered after the preparation of these documents. 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 Ct.
Sandeep. Thus, ordinarily, the FIR number should not find mention in the seizure
memo and Form MÂ29, both of which documents came into existence before
registration of the FIR. However, quite surprisingly, perusal of seizure memo and
Form MÂ29 reflects the mentioning of the full particulars of the FIR thereupon, which
fact has remained unexplained on behalf of the prosecution. It is not even the case that
the same, on the face of it, appears to have been written in separate ink or at some left
over space. Rather, on the seizure memo, it appears to have been recorded in same
continuity, handwriting and ink as rest of the contents of these documents. No
explanation from the prosecution is forthcoming as to how the FIR number surfaced
on a document which was prepared prior to the registration of the FIR. This fact casts
a fatal doubt upon the case of prosecution.
13. At this stage, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in Lalit v. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri. L.J. 127, wherein it was
observed in paragraph 5 as follows:
“….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.
State Vs. Seema FIR No. 36/2020 PS Bh. Dairy
8/16
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, PW 11/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 the knowledge of the I.O. after a copy of it was
delivered to him at the spot by a constable. In the normal circumstances, the F.I.R.
No. should not find mention in the recovery memo or the sketch plan which had come
into existence before the registration of the case. However, from the perusal of the
recovery memo, I find that the FIR is mentioned whereas the sketch plan does not
show the number of the FIR. It is not explained as to how and under what
circumstances the recovery memo came to bear the F.I.R. No. which had already
come 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.”
14. Similarly, in paragraph 4 of Mohd. Hashim vs State, 82 (1999) DLT 375, the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi observed:
“…Surprisingly, the secret information (Ex. P.W. 7/A) received by the SubÂInspector
Narender Kumar Tyagi (P.W. 7), the notice under S. 50 of the Act (Ex. P.W. 5/A)
alleged to have been served on the appellant, the seizure memo (Ex. P.W. 1/A) and the
report submitted under S. 57 of the Act (Ex. P.W. 7/D) bear the number of the FIR
(Ex. P.W. 4/B). The number of the FIR (Ex. P.W. 4/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 circumstances number of the FIR (Ex.
P.W. 4/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. P.W.
4/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,State Vs. Seema FIR No. 36/2020 PS Bh. Dairy
9/16
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.”
15. The aforesaid rulings of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi squarely apply to the
facts in the present case as well, which leads to only one of the either inference, that
is, either the FIR was registered prior to the alleged recovery of the illicit liquor, or
that the said documents were prepared later in point of time. In either of the scenarios,
a dent is created in the version of the prosecution, the benefit of which must accrue to
the accused.
ii). The nonÂjoining of any independent / public witness.
16. It is evident from the record that no public witnesses to the recovery of the liquor
have been either cited in the list of prosecution witnesses or have been examined by
the prosecution. It was admitted by PWÂ1 and PWÂ3 that the public persons were
available near the spot of occurrence. Apparently, IO (PWÂ5) had also admitted that
spot of occurrence is a busy public road and public persons were present nearby but
no explanation has come from IO as to why he did not join any public persons during
the proceedings despite their availability. Admittedly, no notice was served to such
public persons upon their refusal to join investigation in the case. Thus, it is not the
case of prosecution that public witnesses were not available at the spot. However,
from a perusal of the record, no serious efforts 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, particularlyState Vs. Seema FIR No. 36/2020 PS Bh. Dairy
10/16
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.”
17. 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.
18. 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 witnesses were
available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the
investigation. 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
State Vs. Seema FIR No. 36/2020 PS Bh. Dairy
11/16
fact that the explanation for non joining the witnesses from the public is an afterÂ
thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the
prosecution case highly doubtful.”
19. 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,
nonÂcompliance of the mandatory provisions of law, even though public witnesses
were easily available in the vicinity, makes the prosecution version highly doubtful.
20. This Court is conscious of the legal position that nonÂjoining 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.
iii). Possibility of misuse of seal of the investigating officer.
21. As per the version of the prosecution witnesses, the recovered liquor and sample
bottles were duly sealed by IO with the seal of “RK” which was stated to be handed
over to Ct. Sandeep after its use. Nothing has come in the testimony of all the
prosecution witnesses qua handing over of seal to any independent public persons by
State Vs. Seema FIR No. 36/2020 PS Bh. Dairy
12/16
the IO after sealing the case property and the samples of illicit liquor. Thus, it is
apparent that the seal was not 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 witness. Further, no handing over memo is on record to show the
genuineness of fact of actual handing over of seal by IO either to PW Ct. Sandeep or
to any independent public witnesses. In such a factual backdrop, one irresistible
conclusion is drawn that either the seal remained with the IO or other police officials
of the same police station and therefore, 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.
26. 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 OfficerÂHoshiar 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. ItState Vs. Seema FIR No. 36/2020 PS Bh. Dairy
13/16
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 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 any of the independent witness. Even the I.O. examined as PWÂ2 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….”
Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, the possibility of misuse of seal and
tampering of case property cannot be ruled out.
iv). Failure to prove the possession of alcohol by accused beyond permissible limits.
23. The perusal of record shows that the Excise Result dated 06.07.2020 (Ex.AÂ5)
was obtained qua two sample bottles (180 ml each) only, whereby the presence of
alcohol in the said sample bottles was confirmed. The presence of alcohol in the
remaining allegedly recovered liquor bottles has not been thus, proved by the
prosecution. Now, since the State has only found two bottles (360 ml of liquid),
allegedly recovered from the accused, containing alcohol, an offence under section 33
of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 cannot be said to have been made out as the same falls
within the maximum permissible limit specified under Rule 20 of the Delhi Excise
Rules, 2010. At this juncture, the ruling of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, in its
judgment titled as Nagesh S/O Ningaiah vs The State Of Karnataka, Criminal
Revision Petition No.772 /2009, decided on 31 January, 2014, may be adverted to,
State Vs. Seema FIR No. 36/2020 PS Bh. Dairy
14/16
wherein, while acquitting the accused of a similar offence, following observations
were made:
“It is seen from the mahazar that out of 49,440 Whisky bottles, 15 Whisky bottles of
180 ml. each were sent for Chemical Analysis, and it is opined that there was
presence of Ethyl Alcohol in all the bottles that were sent for Chemical Examination,
fit for consumption. Thus, the total quantity sent for Chemical Analysis is less than
permitted quantity under law. We do not know the contents of the other bottles seized
under a Panchanama. There is no evidence to show that all other bottles also
contained alcohol. When the quantity found in the bottle sent for Chemical
Examination is less than permitted limit and when there is no evidence regarding the
contents of all other bottles seized under Panchanama, it cannot be said that the
accused was in possession of the illicit liquor without pass or permit more than
permitted quantity so as to constitute an offence. The unreported decision of this
Court in W.P.No.17991/2011 (Excise), dated 28.02.2012, relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is rightly applicable to the facts of this case………In this case
also the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused was in possession of
liquor more than permitted quantity.”
24. 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 offences u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act beyond reasonable
doubt, thus, entitling the accused person to benefit of doubt and acquittal.
State Vs. Seema FIR No. 36/2020 PS Bh. Dairy
15/16
25. Accordingly, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused for
the offences u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act and holds the accused not guilty of
commission of the said offence. The accused Seema @ Soma is thus, acquitted of
the offence u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act.
Announced in the open court on 09.04.2026.
Digitally signed
RISHABH by RISHABH
KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date: 2026.04.09
15:47:52 +0530
(Rishabh Kapoor)
JMFCÂ01, North District,
Rohini Courts, Delhi
09.04.2026
State Vs. Seema FIR No. 36/2020 PS Bh. Dairy
16/16
