Delhi HC Sets Aside Acquittal Of Man Accused Of Possessing 100 Liquor Pouches, Remands Case After Finding SHO Could File Excise Report

The respondent was charged under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, after allegedly being found with 100 pouches of illicit liquor at his residence.

The Trial Court acquitted him, holding that a police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. could not satisfy Section 75 of the Act, which it understood to require a complaint or report by an Excise Officer.

The State appealed, relying on a Delhi notification and rules said to invest police officers with Excise Officer powers.

Section 75(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, as applicable to Delhi, bars cognizance of offences under Sections 61 or 66 except upon the Magistrate’s own knowledge or suspicion, or a complaint or report of an Excise Officer.

Under Section 3(8), an “Excise Officer” includes any person appointed or invested with powers under the Act; the definition is not limited to Excise Department personnel.

Rule 3 of the applicable rules, made under Section 11, invested specified Delhi police officials with Excise Officer powers.

In Chattar Singh v. State, the Court held that police officers so invested fell within Section 3(8), and their reports could support cognizance under Section 75.

The judgment also noted the State’s reliance on State v. Jaswant Singh.

The Trial Court treated the SHO’s police status as sufficient to invalidate the report, without examining whether the officer was empowered under the Act.

Applying Section 3(8), Rule 3 and Chattar Singh, the High Court held that a duly empowered police officer’s report could satisfy Section 75; the fact that it was filed by a police officer rather than an Excise Department officer did not itself make the prosecution legally untenable.

Because the Trial Court had not considered the prosecution’s merits, those matters were left for determination on remand.

The matter was remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh decision after hearing arguments on the merits; the State was directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, North-West District, Rohini, on 20 November 2026, for the case to be tried by that court or assigned to a competent Judicial Magistrate.

The High Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.