Delhi HC dismisses plea challenging charges in Haryana Judicial Paper Leak case

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a former Registrar (Recruitment), Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the order framing charges against him by Sessions Court, Chandigarh, in the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) paper leak case.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma accepted the arguments of Charanjit Singh Bakhshi, Additional Public Prosecutor for UT-Chandigarh, assisted by Advocate Amit Sahni, and refused to interfere with the order on charge passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, u/s 409/420/120-B, 201IPC and Section 8, 9, 13(1) (d) r/w Section 1(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station-3, Chandigarh.
He also dismissed the revision petition vide a detailed judgment, holding that the court did not find any illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the order of the learned trial court.
The peculiar facts of the present case are that the FIR in question was ordered to be registered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide an order dated September 15, 2017 on a plea filed by a candidate Suman.
The matter was transferred to Delhi by the Supreme Court in 2021 while allowing the transfer petition filed by accused former Registrar Balwinder Kumar Sharma.
According to the prosecution, Chandigarh Police lodged an FIR in pursuance of directions passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the matter involves the leakage of the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Preliminary Examination, 2017.
Bakhshi argued before Delhi HC that this is an "open and shut case" since the accused is a public servant who has dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated and converted for his use the question paper of the Preliminary Examination of HCS (Judicial Branch), 2017 entrusted to him and under his control as a public servant and allowed the coaccused-Sunita to have access thereto. Therefore, he is guilty of having committed the offence under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Advocate Bakhshi further argued that the allegations against the accused persons are serious, the accused persons were in constant touch with each other on mobile phones, and the petitioner had possession of HCS (Judicial) Peper in his possession. There is sufficient material (documentary and electronic evidence) against the accused persons and the same cannot be ignored at this initial stage.
It was also submitted that the scope of interference in revision is to evaluate serious illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the impugned order, and it was prayed that the present petition may be dismissed.
The Delhi High Court, while dismissing the petition, has held that "the record also indicates that the petitioner had the question paper immediately before the alleged leakage."