JUDGMENT : VIVEK AGARWAL, J. 1. Shri K. S. Tomar, learned senior counsel with Shri Sanjay Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the Contemner. 2. It is argued on behalf of the respondent’s counsel Shri Tomar that contempt proceedings have been drawn by the learned Single Judge on the ground that when the case diary was produced in M.Cr.No. 12005/2018, then on 11-4-2018, learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that Sunil Dutt Bhatt posted as Assistant District Excise Officer Circle Dabra/Bhitarwar has joined hands with the applicant and by suppressing the material facts, so that the applicant may succeed in obtaining anticipatory bail from this court, did not forward copy of communication received from Dy. Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Excise), Gurugram (West) addressed to Sunil Dutt Bhatt, in which it is clearly mentioned that “No export of imported liquor was permitted to M/s Saksham Beverages Pvt. Ltd., L-1 BF outside Haryana in Financial Year 2016-17.” It is also mentioned that “No export permit was given to M/s Saksham Beverages Pvt. Ltd. L-1 BF, Gurugram in the Financial Year 2016-17.” It is further mentioned that “In Haryana State “for sale in Haryana only” liquor are allowed to sale only.” Another letter was issued by SPIO– cum-AETO (Excise) Gurugram (West) to Sunil Dutt Bhatt mentioning that “the sale of liquor from L-1 BF is allowed only to the L-1/L-4/L-5 licensee in the State of Haryana only. The sale out side Haryana is not allowed for L-1 BF.” 3. Taking these facts into consideration, learned Single Judge observed that the case diary in M.Cr.C.No. 4495/2018 was sent by Sunil Dutt Bhatt after attesting the same. Similarly, in M.Cr.C.No. 12005/2018, Sunil Dutt Bhatt had sent a set of photo copy of diary after attesting the same. It was observed that both the sets of photo copies of case diary were sent by Sunil Dutt Bhatt to the Office of Additional Advocate General and prima facie Sunil Dutt Bhatt, Assistant District Excise Officer, Gwalior, is the person responsible for sending both the sets of photo copies of case diary to the Office of Additional Advocate General. It was observed that both the sets of photo copies of case diary were sent by Sunil Dutt Bhatt to the Office of Additional Advocate General and prima facie Sunil Dutt Bhatt, Assistant District Excise Officer, Gwalior, is the person responsible for sending both the sets of photo copies of case diary to the Office of Additional Advocate General. Court formed an opinion that prima facie, the act of Sunil Dutt Bhatt, Assistant District Excise Officer Gwalior of suppressing the material document from this court by not sending the same in the set of photo copy of case diary, which was sent by him to the office of Additional Advocate General, Gwalior on 5-4-2018 in M.Cr.C. No. 12005/2018, is a clear attempt to not only play a fraud on the Court, but also to mislead the Court and is a clear interference in the dispensation of justice. It is further observed by the learned Single Judge that “Therefore, looking to the gravity of allegations against the applicant and other co-accused persons and the attempt of Sunil Dutt Bhatt, Assistant District Excise Officer, issue notice to Sunil Dutt Bhatt, Assistant District Excise Officer, Gwalior, to show cause as to why the proceedings for contempt of Court be not initiated against him.” Office was directed to register a case separately. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent has drawn our attention to the fact that respondent has tendered unconditional apology and submits that the case diary was submitted for perusal of the Hon’ble High Court along with the brief annexed to it. From the perusal of brief submitted along with the case diary by the Assistant District Excise Officer, Gwalior, Sunil Dutt Bhatt, point No. 15 is relevant. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it can be clearly seen that the fact regarding the letter No. 541 dt. 16-8-2017 and letter No. 660 dt. 19-7-2017 sent by the Dy. Excise and Taxation Commissioner, (Excise), Gurugram (West) to Sunil Dutt Bhatt is mentioned in detail, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the aforesaid licence is for sale in Haryana only and sale out side Haryana is not allowed for L-1 BF. A copy of this synopsis is enclosed as Annexure R/1. It is further submitted that inadvertently photo copy of such documents were not enclosed but details of such documents were mentioned in the precis (synopsis) submitted along with the case diary. A copy of this synopsis is enclosed as Annexure R/1. It is further submitted that inadvertently photo copy of such documents were not enclosed but details of such documents were mentioned in the precis (synopsis) submitted along with the case diary. It is submitted that in fact, it was the duty of the learned Public Prosecutor, who appeared in the M.Cr.C. to have pointed out this fact from synopsis but inadvertently if this fact was not brought to the notice of the court despite it being on record, it can not be said that there was any deliberate or a willful mistake/mischief on the part of the respondent Sunil Dutt Bhatt. 5. We have perused the original case diary as was sealed by the Registrar of this court and has been opened before this Bench on its instruction. Such summary is part of the case diary under title xxx. At Point No. 15, Sunil Dutt Bhatt, Assistant District Excise Officer has taken note of information received by him under RTI from the office of Dy. Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Gurugram, Haryana. 6. In view of such facts, this court is of the opinion that allegation of suppressing material document from the learned Single Judge by not sending the same in the set of photo copy of case diary has been properly explained that inadvertently photo copy of such documents were not enclosed but details of such documents were mentioned in the precis mentioned above and, therefore, it can not be said that there was any attempt to play fraud on the court or to mislead it with a view to interfere in the dispensation of justice. If this would have been the intention, then precis of such information would not have been contained in the note which appears to have not been brought to the notice of learned Single Judge due to oversight on the part of the learned Public Prosecutor. Thus, this court is of the opinion that the contempt proceedings initiated against respondent Sunil Dutt Bhatt deserve to be dropped after being satisfied with the reasons furnished in reply and supported by documents available on record and accordingly respondent is discharged. 7. Case diary be returned by the Registry to the concerned.