IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39743 of 2024 VINOD RAGHUVANSHI Versus AJAY ARORA Appearance:

Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Shri Yashovardhan Jain -

Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Anil Khare - Senior Advocate with Shri Aman Gupta - Advocate for the respondent.

Reserved on : 12.11.2024 Pronounced on : 26.03.2025 .................................................................................................................................................................................................

ORDER The applicant has filed present petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.

against order dated 09.08.2024 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD MOHSIN 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 11.03.2003 (Annexure A/1). Thereafter, the applicant was transferred from Bhopal on 12.06.2003.

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 04.09.2003 (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 05.01.2004 (Annexure A/3) by directing the State Government to decide the representation filed by complainant. In pursuance of order dated 05.01.2004 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 02.12.2005 (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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD MOHSIN 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 08.04.2008 (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 S