ORDER

1. The applicant has filed present petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S. against order dated 9.8.2024 passed in CRA. No.489/2023 by XXI Additional Sessions Judge, District Bhopal (M.P.) by which the application preferred by applicant under section 391 of Cr.P.C. for taking additional evidence has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant being State Government employee had retired from the post of Deputy Commissioner (Excise). In the year 2003, he was posted as District Excise Officer, Bhopal. The liquor shops situated in Bhopal were put to auction and the same was allotted in favour of Ashoka Traders. The auction proceedings were conducted by a committee headed by then Collector, Bhopal, Shri Anurag Jain, who sent the report to the Excise Commissioner for approval of auction proceedings vide letter dated 11.3.2003 (Annexure A/1). Thereafter, the applicant was transferred from Bhopal on 12.6.2003.

2.1 The respondent/complainant submitted a complaint that partnership deed of Ms. Ashoka Traders was changed by officers and employees of Excise Department. On the basis of said complaint, the state government called a report from the Collector, Bhopal, who sent the report on 4.9.2003 (Annexure A/2). In that report, the Collector has written that partnership deed was submitted on the date of auction proceedings. Thereafter, the complainant filed a writ petition before Coordinate Bench of this Court WP. No.28262/2003, which was disposed of vide order dated 5.1.2004 (Annexure A/3) by directing the State Government to decide the representation filed by complainant. In pursuance of order dated 5.1.2004 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court, the Commissioner (Excise) directed Shri Bharat Kumar Vyas, Additional Commissioner (Excise) to enquire into the complaint made by complainant. Thereafter, Shri Bharat Kumar Vyas submitted a preliminary report dated 2.12.2005 (Annexure A/4) in which he found that present applicant and other officers have changed the partnership deed. The present applicant has sent an incorrect report through Collector to Chief Secretary. The Commissioner (Excise) found that there is inconsistency in the report submitted by Collector, Bhopal, Shri Anurag Jain and inquiry report submitted by Additional Commissioner (Excise), Shri Bharat Kumar Vyas. Therefore, he directed to conduct second enquiry by another officer Shri D.R. Johri, who in its enquiry report (Annexure A/5) found that there is no direct evidence against present applicant and other officers, therefore they cannot be held responsible for the same.

2.2 After considering the representation submitted by the complainant, the Principal Secretary, Department of Commercial Taxes held that no irregularity was committed in the auction proceedings. He also disapproved the report submitted by Shri Bharat Kumar Vyas and Shri D.R. Johri and rejected the representation of complainant. Thereafter, respondent/complainant filed another writ petition WP. No.2617/2007 before this Court and the Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the said WP by order dated 8.4.2008 (Annexure A/7) by holding that report submitted Shri Bharat Kumar Vyas has been considered and rejected by the State Government. Thus, it is clear that the inquiry report submitted by Shri Bharat Kumar Vyas was considered and disapproved by the State Government. In this regard, a public interest litigation WP (PIL) No.20614/2013 was also filed before this Court, which was also dismissed by order dated 14.8.2014 (Annexure A/8).

2.3 Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C. before C.J.M.. (Annexure A/9), Bhopal alleging for commission of offences under section 420, 467, 468, 471/120-B of IPC. The trial Court registered the case against the applicant and co-accused during the trial, the applicant filed an application under section 243/247 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court for summoning Shri Anurag Jain, then Collector, Bhopal as defence witness, which