The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a review petition, holding that the mere fact that the accused is an officer of the Excise Department cannot, by itself, justify transferring an investigation to the CBI. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 396]

The division bench of Justice Sandeep N Bhatt and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed,

"the order to hand over the investigation to CBI is not warranted as police authorities could not have sufficient time to investigate the matter and it cannot be said that the accused is Excise officer, on that ground, the investigation is required to be handed over to CBI".

The matter arose from allegations concerning the death of Dinesh Makwana, who was running licensed liquor shops in Dewas and Indore. Per the allegations, the Excise Assistant Commissioner had allegedly demanded ₹1.5 lakhs per month per shop from the deceased.

Per the petitioner, the deceased had paid ₹22 lakh but was allegedly subjected to continued demands and threats. It was alleged that the deceased subsequenlty committee suicide on November 8, 2025, after consuming poison and made a video recording before his death. The petitioner also alleged that the local police had failed to properly investigate the matter.

Following the allegations, a writ petition was filed before the High Court, wherein a Single Judge Bench had directed the CBI to take over the investigation with a direction to register an FIR. After the CBI filed an FIR, the accused Excise Officer challenged the Single Judge Bench's order before the Division Bench.

On July 17, 2026, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal and quashed the Single Judge's order. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a review petition challenging the order of the Division Bench.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the Division Bench proceeded on the assumption that the review petition ought to have exhausted the remedy under Sections 154(3), 156(3) and Section 200 CrPC before invoking Article 226 of the Constitution. It was further argued that the Division Bench failed to appreciate that the allegations are directed against a senior public servant holding a responsible post in the Excise Department.

The counsel for the respondent argued that no ground for review was disclosed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. It was also submitted that review cannot be an appeal in disguise.

The bench considered the scope of judicial review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which lays out procedure for review of judgment. Referring to the Supreme Court cases, the bench reiterated the distinction between power of review and appellate power.

Considering the ground raised in the present petition, the bench, from its language, noted that the petitioner was praying for exercising power of appellate jurisdiction and not for a review.

The court took serious note of the petitioner's conduct, noting;

"It is relevant to observe that after approaching police authorities by providing video recording and thereafter sending the register post within four days by the petitioner and thereafter filing petition on very next date sending communication to the authority itself speaks about the conduct and intention of the review petitioner".

Accordingly, the court dismissed the review petition, since the order of the Division Bench warranted no interference.