Delhi District Court
State vs Muskan Rana on 21 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JMFC-05,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Ankur Panghal, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 12629/2022
CNR No. -: DLWT020280032022
FIR No. -: 228/2022
Police Station -: Anand Parbat
Section(s) -: 33 Delhi Excise Act
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
MUSKAN RANA
W/o Lakhan,
R/o 753/3, Baba Farid Puri,
Anand Parbat, Delhi.
.... Accused Person
1. Name of Complainant :- HC Om Prakash
2. Name of accused person :- Muskan Rana
3. Offence complained of :- 33 Delhi Excise Act
or proved
4. Plea of accused person :- Not Guilty
5. Date of Commission of :- 19.04.2022
offence
6. Date of Filing of case :- 20.10.2022
7. Date of Reserving :- 09.03.2026
Order
8. Date of Pronouncement :- 21.04.2026
9. Final Order :- Acquitted
Argued by -: Ms. Arunima Goel, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Deepak Juneja, Ld. Counsel for the
accused. ANKUR
Digitally signed by
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.21
16:33:13 +0530
Cr. Case No. 12629/2022 State vs Muskan Rana Page 1 of 21
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution against the
accused is that on 19.04.2022, at about 02:00 PM at Cow Dairy
Road, Near Garbage House, Baba Farid Puri, Anand Parbat, Delhi,
within the jurisdiction of PS Anand Parbat, the accused was found
in possession of illicit liquor as described in the seizure memo of
present FIR. As such, it is alleged that the accused person has
committed the offence under section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act,
2009 (hereinafter, “Excise Act“), for which FIR No. 228/2022 was
registered at Police Station Anand Parbat.
INVESTIGAION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
2. After registration of FIR, the investigating officer
(hereinafter ‘IO’) conducted investigation and on culmination of
the same, chargesheet against the present accused person was
filed. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused person
was summoned to face trial. The accused Muskan Rana appeared
in court and she was supplied the copies of documents relied upon
in the charge sheet in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, “CrPC“).
3. On a finding a prima facie case against the accused
Muskan Rana, a charge was framed for the offence punishable U/s
33 of Delhi Excise Act against the accused Muskan Rana on
16.02.2024. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Digitally
signed by
ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.21
16:33:22
+0530Cr. Case No. 12629/2022 State vs Muskan Rana Page 2 of 21
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral
and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt: –
ORAL EVIDENCE
PW1 :- HC Om Prakash (Complainant)
PW2 :- HC Homender (Ist IO)
PW3 :- W/HC Rukmani (Accompanied IO to the
spot)
PW4 :- HC Ram Kishore Meena (IInd IO)
PW5 :- HC Pawan Kumar (MHC(m))DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex. PW1/A :- Seizure memo of case property
Ex. PW1/B :- Rukka
Ex. PW1/C :- Site Plan
Mark X :- Road Certificate 71/21/22 vide which the
sample was sent to Excise Lab
Ex. PW1/D :- Confiscation order of case property
Ex. PW1/E :- Photographs of destroyed case property
(colly)
Ex. P1 :- Case property i.e., one sample bottle of
illicit liquor
Ex. PW2/A :- Form No. M-29
Ex. PW5/A :- Copy of register no. 19 having entry
(OSR) number 2848ADMITTED DOCUMENTS (under S. 294 CrPC)
Ex. AD-1 :- FIR No. 228/2022 PS Anand Parbat along
with certificate u/s 65B of The Indian
Evidence Act
Ex. AD-2 :- Endorsement on rukka
Ex. AD-3 :- DD No. 41A dt. 19.04.2022 PS Anand
Parbat
Ex. AD-4 :- Report of the chemical examiner
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.21
16:33:27 +0530Cr. Case No. 12629/2022 State vs Muskan Rana Page 3 of 21
5. HC Om Prakash (PW-1) is the complainant in present
case and he in his examination in chief stated on oath that on
19.04.2022, he was posted at Ct. at PS Anand Parbat. PW1 further
deposed that on that day he was on beat patrolling duty and at
around 01:30 pm, one secret informer met him and told him that
one lady will come with illicit liquor at public toilet, Janta Park at
around 02:00 pm. PW1 further deposed at 02:00 pm the lady came
with white colour plastic katta and secret informer pointed toward
that lady and left the spot. PW1 further deposed that he stopped
and asked the contents of the katta but she did not give any
satisfactory reply and thereafter he opened the katta and illicit
liquor was found inside the katta. PW1 further deposed that on
counting he found 96 quarter bottles having label “Asli Masala
Daar Santra for sell in Haryana only, 180ml”. PW1 further
deposed that thereafter he called the IO/HC Homender and after
some time IO along with W/Ct. Rukmani came at the spot and he
handed over the illicit liquor to IO. PW1 further deposed that the
name of the accused was Muskan Rana. PW1 further deposed that
IO checked the katta and took out one sample bottle, which was
sealed with seal of APRVT and remaining 95 quarter bottles were
sealed in the same katta and sealed it APRVT. PW1 further
deposed that both were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.
PW 1/A and the seal was handed over him by the IO. PW1 further
deposed that IO also filled form no M-29 and thereafter IO
prepared rukka Ex. PW 1/B and handed over to him with the
instructions to lodge the FIR.
5.1. PW1 further deposed that thereafter he went
to PS Anand Parbat and handed over the rukka to DO. PW1 further
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.21
16:33:35 +0530
Cr. Case No. 12629/2022 State vs Muskan Rana Page 4 of 21
deposed that after sometime DO handed over the copy of FIR and
original rukka to him with the instruction to give it to IO. PW1
further deposed that he then returned to the spot where he handed
over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO for further
investigation. PW1 further deposed that thereafter he prepared the
site plan Ex. PW1/C and IO then served notice U/s 41A CrPC.
PW1 further deposed that thereafter they came back to the PS
along with case property and the same was deposited in the
malkhana of the PS. PW1 further deposed that later on he received
the same sample from MHC(m) on the instruction of IO to despite
the same to the chemical excise lab for chemical examination vide
RC 71/21/22 Mark X. PW1 further deposed that he deposited the
same at excise lab, ITO and no tempering had taken place under
his custody with the sample. PW1 further deposed that IO recoded
his supplementary statement U/s 161 CrPC. The witness has
correctly identified the accused in court. One confiscation order
Ex. PW 1/D and photographs of the destroyed case property Ex.
PW 1/E(Colly) were produced by the MHC(m) concerned and the
witness has correctly identified the case property Ex. P1 i.e., one
sample bottle of illicit liquor.
5.2. PW-1 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel
for accused person wherein he deposed that he cannot tell when he
left the spot finally. PW1 further deposed that he took the case
property himself on foot and the distance between the spot and the
PS is 500 mts. PW1 further deposed that IO came on the spot at
about 02:30 PM and he cannot tell which document he prepared
first. PW1 further deposed that the case property was sealed at
about 03:45 pm and he had brought the sealing material from the
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
PANGHAL
ANKUR Date:
PANGHAL 2026.04.21
16:33:46
+0530Cr. Case No. 12629/2022 State vs Muskan Rana Page 5 of 21
PS. PW1 further deposed that he went to PS at about 03:45 pm and
came back after 10 minutes. PW1 further deposed that he cannot
tell the exact time when the site plan, seizure memo and rukka was
prepared. PW1 further deposed that no seal handing over memo
was prepared by the IO and he cannot tell how many copies of
form M-29 were filled by the IO at the spot. PW1 further deposed
that IO prepared the disclosure statement of the accused regarding
the source of illicit liquor. PW1 further deposed that he cannot tell
which documents were prepared by the IO before sending the
rukka. PW1 admitted the fact that the spot is the residential area
and many public persons were crossing the spot at that time. PW1
further deposed that he does not remember whether IO had given
any notice to any public person to join the investigation and he
cannot tell whether W/Ct. had personally searched the accused or
not. PW1 denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from
the accused and she was falsely implicated in the present case.
PW1 further denied the suggestion that she was called at the PS
and case property was falsely planted upon her by the IO. PW1
further denied the suggestion that he had never visited the spot on
the date of incident. PW1 also denied the suggestion that he is
deposing falsely.
6. HC Homender (PW-2) is the first IO in present case
and he was examined on 22.05.2025, who stated on oath that on
19.04.2022, he was posted as HC at PS Anand Parbat and on that
day, he was on emergency duty and DO had informed him at
around 02:00 pm that Ct. Om Prakash has recovered illicit liquor at
public toilet, Janta Park. PW2 further deposed that after 5 minutes
he along with W/Ct. Rukmani went to the spot and on reaching the
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.21
16:33:53 +0530Cr. Case No. 12629/2022 State vs Muskan Rana Page 6 of 21
spot, he met Ct. Om Prakash, who handed over to him one plastic
katta containing 96 quarter bottles having label “Asli Masala Daar
Santra for sell in Haryana only, 180ml”. PW2 further deposed that
the name of the accused was Muskan Rana and he checked the
katta and took out one sample bottle, which was sealed with seal of
APRVT and remaining 95 quarter bottles were sealed in the same
katta and sealed with seal of APRVT. PW2 further deposed that
both were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW 1/A and the
seal was handed over to Ct. Om Prakash by him. PW2 further
deposed that he also filled form no M-29 Ex. PW 2/A and
thereafter, he prepared rukka Ex. PW1/B and handed over to Ct.
Om Prakash with the instruction to lodge the FIR. PW2 further
deposed that thereafter Ct. Om Prakash went to PS Anand Parbat
and returned to the spot where Ct. Om Prakash handed over the
copy of FIR and original rukka to the him for further investigation.
PW2 further deposed that thereafter he prepared the site plan Ex.
PW 1/C and he then served notice U/s 41A CrPC. PW2 further
deposed that thereafter they came back to the PS along with case
property and the case property was deposited in the malkhana of
the PS. PW2 further deposed that he recorded statement U/s 161
CrPC of witness and later on he sent the sample to the chemical
excise lab for chemical examination vide RC 71/21/22 Mark X.
PW2 further deposed that he recoded supplementary statement U/s
161 CrPC and later on, he was transferred from PS Anand Parbat
to 3rd BN, Vikas Puri and he submitted the case file to the MHC(r)
of PS Anand Parbat. The witness has correctly identified the
accused in court.
Digitally
signed by
ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.21
16:33:59
+0530Cr. Case No. 12629/2022 State vs Muskan Rana Page 7 of 21
6.1. PW2 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel
for accused, and he deposed that he left the spot finally at 05:30pm
with W/Ct. Rukmani and Ct. Om Prakash. PW2 further deposed
that they took the case property on his personal bike along with
W/Ct. Rukmani. PW2 further deposed that the distance between
the spot and the PS is 700m and he came on the spot at about 02:30
pm. PW2 further deposed that he first of all prepared seizure memo
and it took 20 minutes to prepare seizure memo. PW2 further
deposed that he cannot tell exact time of sealing the case property
but the sealing material was brought by Ct. Om Prakash. PW2
further deposed that he cannot tell when Ct. Om Prakash brought
the sealing material. PW2 further deposed that Ct. Om Prakash
went to PS at about 03:45 pm and came back after 45 minutes with
copy of FIR. PW2 further deposed that he then prepared site plan
and served notice U/s 41A CrPC to accused. PW2 further deposed
that no handing over memo of seal was prepared by him and he
prepared three copies of form M-29 at the spot. PW2 further
deposed that he does not remember whether he had prepared the
disclosure statement of the accused regarding the source of illicit
liquor. PW2 admitted the fact that spot is the residential area and
many public persons were crossing the spot at that time. PW2
further deposed that he does not remember whether he had given
any notice to any public person to join the investigation. PW2
further deposed that no personal search of the accused was
conducted and deposited the case property in the malkhana at
07:00 PM. PW2 further deposed that he does not remember
whether he had signed register no 19 or not. PW2 denied the
suggestion that nothing was recovered from the accused and she
has been falsely implicated in the present case and that is why no
ANKUR
Digitally signed by
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.21
16:34:06 +0530Cr. Case No. 12629/2022 State vs Muskan Rana Page 8 of 21
personal search was offered to the accused. PW2 further denied the
suggestion that accused was called at the PS and case property was
falsely planted upon her. PW2 further denied the suggestion that
he had never visited the spot on the date of incident. PW2 also
denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
7. W/HC Rukmani (PW-3) has accompanied IO to the
spot and she in her examination in chief has deposed on the same
lines as PW1 and PW2 and has corroborated their testimonies.
Therefore, her testimony is not reiterated here for the sake of
brevity.
7.1. PW-3 was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel
for accused person wherein she deposed that she left the spot
finally at about 04:00 PM with HC Homender. PW3 further
deposed that she cannot tell how the case property was taken to the
PS. PW3 further deposed that the distance between the spot and the
PS is 1-1.5 Kms. PW3 further deposed that she came at the spot
with HC Homender at about 03:30 PM. PW3 further deposed that
she does not remember IO prepared which document first. PW3
further deposed that she cannot tell exact time of sealing the case
property but the sealing material was brought by the Ct. Om
Prakash. PW3 further deposed that she cannot tell when Ct. Om
Prakash brought the sealing material. PW3 further deposed that Ct.
Om Prakash went to PS at about 04:00 PM and came back after 30
minutes with copy of FIR. PW3 further deposed that she does not
remember what document was prepared by IO after the
registration of the FIR. PW3 further deposed that she does not
remember whether she conducted the personal search of accused
or not. PW3 further deposed that she does not remember whether
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.21
16:34:12 +0530
Cr. Case No. 12629/2022 State vs Muskan Rana Page 9 of 21
IO clicked any photograph of the spot or not. PW3 further deposed
that HC Homender handed over the seal at about 03:30 P.M. and
no handing over memo of seal was prepared by her. PW3 further
deposed that she does not remember how many copies of form
M-29 were prepared by the IO. PW3 further admitted the fact that
spot is the residential area and many public persons were crossing
the spot at that time. PW3 further deposed that she does not
remember whether IO had given any notice to any public person to
join the investigation. PW3 denied the suggestion that nothing was
recovered from the accused and she was falsely implicated in the
present case and that is why no personal search was offered to the
accused. PW3 further denied the suggestion that accused was
called at the PS and case property was falsely planted upon her.
PW3 further denied the suggestion that she had never visited the
spot on the date of incident. PW3 also denied the suggestion that
she is deposing falsely.
8. HC Ramkishore Meena (PW-4) is the second IO in
present case and he was examined on 09.01.2026, who stated on
oath that on 23.06.2022 he was posted as HC at PS Anand Parbat
and on the said date the investigation of the present case was
marked to him and the case file was handed over by MHC(r). PW4
further deposed that thereafter, he proceeded with the investigation
of the case and during the investigation, on 01.07.2022 he obtained
report from the Excise Department, ITO and placed the same on
record. PW4 further deposed that as the investigation of the case
was complete, he prepared the charge sheet and filed the same
before the Hon’ble Court. The witness deposed that he can identify
the accused and identity of accused was not disputed by the Ld.
Digitally signed
Counsel for the accused.
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.21
16:34:18 +0530Cr. Case No. 12629/2022 State vs Muskan Rana Page 10 of 21
8.1. PW-4 was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel
for accused person wherein he deposed that he did not investigate
further regarding the source of liquor. The witness denied the
suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
9. HC Pawan Kumar (PW-5) in his examination in chief
has deposed that on 19.04.2022 he was posted as MHC(m) at PS
Anand Parbat and on the said date case property of the present case
i.e., illicit liquor was deposited by the IO in the malkhana. PW5
further deposed that an entry with respect to the same was also
made in the register no. 19 vide entry number 2848 Ex. PW 5/A
(OSR). The witness has produced original register no. 19 having
the entry number 2848 along with the photocopy of the said entry.
PW5 further deposed that on 05.05.2022 he had handed over the
sample bottle along with the road certificate Mark X form to
constable Om Prakash for depositing the same with Chemical
Examiner Excise Department, Delhi.
9.1. PW-5 in his cross examination by the Ld.
Counsel for the accused has admitted the fact that in entry no. 2848
in register no. 19 no signatures of IO as well as no time was
mentioned on that day when the case property was deposited. PW5
denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the instance of
the IO.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
10. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in
order to allow the accused to personally explain the incriminating
circumstances appearing in evidence against her, the statement of
accused was recorded without oath on 09.03.2026 under section
313 CrPC in which she stated that she has been falsely implicated Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL
ANKUR PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.21 16:34:27 +0530
Cr. Case No. 12629/2022 State vs Muskan Rana Page 11 of 21
in the present case and nothing was recovered. She further stated
that she does not want to lead any defence evidence and matter was
listed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
11. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld.
counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful
consideration of the material appearing on record.
12. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that all the
ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. The
recovery of illicit liquor stands proved from the ocular as well as
documentary evidence. She has argued that oral as well as
documentary evidence has proved the offence beyond reasonable
doubt. As such, it is prayed that accused be punished for the said
offence.
13. Per contra, Ld. counsel for the accused has argued
that the state has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable
doubt. Ld. counsel submits that there are material inconsistencies
in the testimonies of witnesses, examined by the prosecution. It has
been argued that PW1/HC Om Prakash in his cross-examination
has deposed that the case property was taken on foot, whereas
PW2/HC Homender has deposed that case property was taken on
personal bike. It is further argued that no seal handing over memo
was prepared. It is further submitted that accused has been falsely
implicated in the present case. As such, it is prayed that accused be
acquitted of the said offence.
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
PANGHAL
ANKUR Date:
PANGHAL 2026.04.21
16:34:33
+0530Cr. Case No. 12629/2022 State vs Muskan Rana Page 12 of 21
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
14. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it
would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to be met.
In order to establish the offence under Section 33 of the Delhi
Excise Act, the prosecution must fulfil all the essential ingredients
of the offence. Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act is reproduced for
ready reference-
“33. Penalty for unlawful import, export, transport, manufacture,
possession, sale, etc. (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
lakh rupees”
15. I have carefully gone through all the records at hand
and testimony of the witnesses. After perusal, this court is of the
opinion that the point for determination in the present case is:
I. Whether on 19.04.2022 at about 02:00
PM at Cow Dairy Road, Near Garbage House, Baba
Farid Puri, Anand Parbat, Delhi, within the jurisdiction
of PS Anand Parbat, the accused was found in
possession of illicit liquor as described in seizure memo
without having any permit or license, at the relevant
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL 16:34:46
Date: 2026.04.21
+0530
Cr. Case No. 12629/2022 State vs Muskan Rana Page 13 of 21
place and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s
33 of Delhi Excise Act.
16. In criminal law, the burden of proof on the
prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. On a bare perusal
of the above offence, it can be culled out that the prosecution has to
prove that the accused was found in possession of illicit liquor, and
the said possession of the accused was without any permit, licence
or pass. Thus, it is essential to prove the recovery from the
accused.
17. The Ld. APP has relied upon Section 52 of the Delhi
Excise Act. As per ld. APP for the state, as soon as the accused is
charged of commission of the offence punishable under Section 33
of the Delhi Excise Act, a presumption in favour of the prosecution
is raised under Section 52 of the Delhi Excise Act. The said
argument does not find favour with this Court. Section 52 of the
Delhi Excise Act reads as under:
“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) 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 the prevention of the
commission of such an offence”.
18. The words “for the possession of which he is unable
to account satisfactorily” used in Section 52(1) of the Delhi Excise
Act stipulates that as a prerequisite for the presumption under the
aforesaid provision being raised against the accused, it is ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR
PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.21 16:34:53
+0530
Cr. Case No. 12629/2022 State vs Muskan Rana Page 14 of 21
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, for the reasons mentioned
hereinafter the prosecution has failed to establish beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused was found in possession of the
alleged illicit liquor. Accordingly, no presumption as provided for
under Section 52 of the Delhi Excise Act can be raised against the
accused in the present case.
19. In the present case the prosecution story rests
entirely on the alleged recovery of case property i.e., illicit liquor,
from the possession of accused by police official i.e., PW1 who
was on patrolling duty at the relevant time and place of incident. At
the outset, it is observed that evidence of departure entry has not
been led by PW-1 in his examination in chief or his cross-
examination. Furthermore, no evidence of any arrival entry of
PW1 has been led by the state. PW1 has nowhere, in his
examination in chief or cross examination has stated that he had
made any DD entry regarding his departure or arrival entry at the
PS. Police officials are under a statutory duty to mark their
departure and arrival in the register kept in the police station for the
purpose as per the Punjab Police Rules. It is relevant here to
reproduce Chapter 22 Rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934,
which reads as under:
“22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No. II
The following matters shall, amongst others, be entered:
(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police
station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether
posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the
Cr. Case No. 12629/2022 State vs Muskan Rana ANKUR
Page 15 of 21
Digitally signed by ANKUR
PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.21 16:35:04 +0530
nature of their duty. This entry shall be made immediately on
arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall
be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal.
Note: The term Police Station will include all places such as
Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is
maintained.”
PW1 has not tendered any such entry into evidence to
corroborate his stand regarding making of departure or arrival
entry at PS.
20. In the present case, the prosecution has not led
evidence of any public person. All the witness are police officials.
It is not the case of the prosecution that no public person was
present at or near the spot of arrest and recovery. In fact, in the
testimony of PW1, PW2, PW3 as well as in rukka it has been stated
that police official did ask certain public persons to join the
proceedings however they refused citing just reasons. Further,
PW1, PW2 and PW3 have stated that IO asked public persons to
join the investigation and also submitted that they do not
remember whether any notice was given to any person by the IO.
PW2/IO neither recorded their names and addresses. Further, there
is nothing on record to show that IO had served any notice under
Section 160 Cr.PC. upon the persons who refused to join the
investigation. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that any
serious effort was made by PW1, PW2 and PW3 to join public
witnesses in the proceedings. It is a well settled proposition that
non joining of public witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the
investigation by police. Section 100(4) of the Cr.PC also casts a
statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two
respectable persons of the society. Same has not been done in the
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.21
16:35:11 +0530Cr. Case No. 12629/2022 State vs Muskan Rana Page 16 of 21
present case. This casts a doubt on the fairness of the investigation.
Reliance is placed on paragraph 6 of the judgment in Pawan
Kumar vs. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri.L.J. 127, wherein
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had observed as under:
” … According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public witness
in the case while according to Kalam Singh, no public person was
present there. It hardly stands to reason that at a place like a bus
stop near Subhas Bazar, there would be no person present at a
crucial time like 07.30 p.m. when there is a lot of rush of
commuters for boarding the buses to their respective destinations.
Admittedly, there is no impediment in believing the version of the
Police officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good
foundation. At least one of them should deposed that they tried to
contact the public witnesses or that they refused to join the
investigation. Here is a case where no effort was made to join any
public witness even though number of them were present. No
plausible explanation from the side of the prosecution is
forthcoming for not joining the independent witnesses in a case of
serious nature like the present one. It may be that there is an
apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves
with the Police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the
I.O. should have made an earnest effort to join the independent
witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made
and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest
or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused.”
In a case law reported as Anoop Joshi vs. State, 1992 (2) C.C.
Cases 314 (HC), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has observed as
under:
“18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that 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 evident
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“.
Digitally
signed by
ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.21
16:35:17
+0530Cr. Case No. 12629/2022 State vs Muskan Rana Page 17 of 21
21. This Court is, however, conscious that the
prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole
ground of non-joining of public witnesses as public witnesses keep
themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable, as has been
held in Appabhai and another vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC
696. However, in the present case, it is not only the absence of
public witnesses which raises a doubt on the prosecution but there
are other circumstances too, as discussed hereinabove and
hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the prosecution version.
22. Further, as per the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, the sample of liquor and case property were sealed by
the PW2 with the seal of “APRVT”. However, no handing over
memo regarding the same was prepared. Further, the seal in the
present case was not handed over to any independent witness nor
was it deposited in the malkhana to assail the possibility of its
misuse. Thus, the possibility that the case property may have been
tampered with cannot be ruled out. The seizure memo Ex.PW1/A
was made on 19.04.2022 and PW5 has deposed that he has sent the
samples to Excise Lab on 05.05.2022, i.e., after a delay of around
15 days. PW2 deposed that he deposited the case property in
malkhana on 19.04.2022. As such, the prosecution has not been
able to prove that there was no scope of tampering. Therefore, the
evidence of the witnesses on this point does not inspire confidence.
23. Moving ahead, PW1, PW2 and PW3 have deposed
that seizure memo Ex. PW1/A was prepared before rukka was sent
to the police station for registration of the FIR. The FIR was,
therefore, admittedly registered after the preparation of seizure
memo Ex. PW1/A. Accordingly, it follows that the number of the
FIR would have come to the knowledge of the PW2 only after a Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL 16:35:24
Date: 2026.04.21
+0530
Cr. Case No. 12629/2022 State vs Muskan Rana Page 18 of 21
copy of the FIR was brought to the spot by PW1. Thus, ordinarily,
the FIR number should not find mention in the seizure memo,
which came into existence before registration of the FIR.
However, interestingly, the seizure memo Ex. PW1/A bears the
FIR number and case details. The same indicates that FIR number
was mentioned on the said document while preparing the same.
Reliance here is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court
of in Pawan Kumar vs. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri.L.J.
127 wherein it was observed in as under:
“… Learned counsel for the State concedes that immediately after
the arrest of the accused, his personal search was affected and the
memo Ex. PW11/D was prepared. Thereafter, the sketch plan of
the knife was prepared in the presence of the witnesses. After that,
the ruqa EX. PW11/F was sent to the Police Station for the
registration of the case on the basis of which the FIR, PW11/G
was recorded. The F.I.R. is numbered as 36, a copy of which was
sent to the I.O. after its registration. It comes to that the number of
F.I.R. 36 came to 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.”
24. Furthermore, in paragraph 4 of Mohd. Hashim vs.
State, 1999 VI AD (Delhi) 569, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
observed:
“… Surprisingly, the secret information (Ex. PW7/A) received by
the Sub Inspector Narender Kumar Tyagi (PW7), the notice under
Section 50 of the Act (Ex. PW5/A) alleged to have been served on
the appellant, the seizure memo (Ex. PW1/A) and the report
submitted under Section 57 of the Act (Ex. PW7/D) bear the
number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B). The number of the FIR (Ex.
PW4/B) given on the top of the aforesaid documents is in the
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.21
16:35:31 +0530Cr. Case No. 12629/2022 State vs Muskan Rana Page 19 of 21
same ink and in the same handwriting, which clearly indicates
that these documents were prepared at the same time. The
prosecution has not offered any explanation as to under what
circumstance number of the FIR (Ex.PW4/B) had appeared on the
top of the aforesaid documents, which were allegedly prepared on
the spot. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR (Ex.
PW4/B) was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the
contraband or number of the said FIR was inserted in these
documents after its registration. In both the situations, it seriously
reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a
good deal of doubt about recovery of the contraband in the
manner alleged by the prosecution.”
25. In the instant case as well, no explanation has been
furnished on record as to how the FIR number and case details
have appeared on the seizure memo Ex. PW1/A. The same leads to
inference that either the said document was prepared later or that
the FIR had been registered earlier in point of time. In both the
aforesaid cases a dent is created and unexplained holes are left in
the prosecution story, the benefit of which must accrue to the
accused.
26. The facts that no independent witness was cited or
examined, daily diary entry regarding departure and arrival of
PW1 has not been proved, possibility of misuse of seal cannot been
ruled out, the appearance of FIR number and case particulars on
the seizure memo has not been explained and contradictions in the
testimony of prosecution witnesses, when kept in juxtaposition to
each other, cast a cloud of suspicion over the prosecution version.
In view of the aforesaid, the possibility of false implication of the
accused in the present case cannot be ruled out. Considering the
discussion on the above issues, the inevitable conclusion is that the
prosecution has failed to prove that illicit liquor was recovered
from the possession of the accused.
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
PANGHAL
ANKUR Date:
PANGHAL 2026.04.21
16:35:42
+0530Cr. Case No. 12629/2022 State vs Muskan Rana Page 20 of 21
CONCLUSION
27. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home
the guilt of the accused, the prosecution was required to prove the
offence of Section 33 of the Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt.
The accused has been successful in pointing out the deficiencies in
the case of the prosecution. The recovery of the illicit liquor from
the possession of the accused, which was the essential ingredient
of the offence, is highly doubtful. The fact that independent
witnesses were not joined, despite abundant availability, casts
serious doubt on the version of the prosecution. Further, the
accused has been able to raise doubts with respect to the possibility
of tampering with the case property. The other material on record
does not inspire confidence and a conviction cannot be based on
the said material.
28. Resultantly, the prosecution has failed to prove the
offences beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to the
benefit of doubt. As such, the accused MUSKAN RANA W/o
Lakhan is hereby found not guilty. She is ACQUITTED of the
offences under Section 33 of Delhi Excise Act.
29. Case property confiscated to the State and disposed
off as per law if not already done.
30. File be consigned to record room, after due
compliance.
Announced in open court on 21.04.2026 in the presence of the accused.
The judgment contains 21 pages and each page have been signed by the undersigned.
ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR
PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.21 16:35:56 +0530
(ANKUR PANGHAL)
JMFC-05, West District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
21/04/2026
Cr. Case No. 12629/2022 State vs Muskan Rana Page 21 of 21
[ad_1]
Source link
