VINOD RAGHUVANSHI Vs. AJAY ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed present petition under Sec. 528 of B.N.S.S. against order dtd. 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 Sec. 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 dtd. 11/3/2003 (Annexure A/1). Thereafter, the applicant was transferred from Bhopal on 12/6/2003.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has been convicted by the Trial Court solely on the basis of report submitted by Shri Bharat Kumar Vyas, Additional Excise Commissioner in which Shri Vyas has mentioned that the applicant has managed to send an incorrect report through Collector, Bhopal on 4/9/2003. Shri Anurag Jain, then Collector, Bhopal can explain as to whether the report was sent by him on seeing official records or the same was sent only at the instance of present applicant. Though report sent by Collector Shri Anurag Jain has already been exhibited in the evidence, but oral testimony of Shri Anurag Jain is required to controvert the finding given by Shri Bharat Kumar Vyas, Additional Excise Commissioner. Non examination of Shri Anurag Jain will severely prejudice the defence of applicant.