2017 Haryana Judicial Paper Leak: Delhi High Court Upholds Charges Framed Against Former P&H HC Registrar (Recruitment)

The Delhi High Court has upheld the charges framed against former Registrar (Recruitment) of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Dr. Balwinder Kumar Sharma, in connection with the paper leak of Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Preliminary Examination, 2017.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said that as per the record, Sharma was in possession of the question paper immediately before the alleged leak.

“The case is of a very sensitive nature and the evidence which is required to be led for the purpose of proving the case is either digital or documentary in nature,” the court said.

It upheld the order passed on January 31, 2020, vide which charges were framed against Sharma by a sessions court in Chandigarh. In 2021, the Supreme Court allowed Sharma's plea and transferred the trial to the national capital.

The case is now pending adjudication before the Court of Learned Principal District & Sessions Judge-Cum- Special Judge (PC Act/CBI), Rouse Avenue Court.

Sharma was suspended and transferred to Ropar by the Punjab and Haryana High Court immediately after the paper leak. He was arrested later.

Chargesheet was filed against Sharma under Sections 8, 9, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409, 420, 120B and 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Dismissing Sharma's plea, the court said that at the stage of charges, the court is required to examine the record produced by the prosecution and the Cr.P.C. does not confer any right upon the accused to produce any document at that stage.

“However, in exceptional cases where a document may show the prosecution as preposterous, the same can be considered depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances. However, in the present case, there is no such material,” the court said.

It added: “In the present case, broadly the case of the prosecution against the petitioner herein, who was working as a Registrar Recruitment is that he was in constant touch with the co-accused Sunita. This allegations of the prosecution of the petitioner and the accused being in constant touch is revealed by the following charts of the call details of their alleged known and „secret‟ phone numbers.”

The court further said that in cases where digital or electronic evidence is available, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown at the initial stage.

“The jurisdiction of the Court while entertaining the revision petition is also very limited, the Court can interfere in the challenged order or only if there is any serious illegality, infirmity or perversity in the order of the learned Trial Court. I do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the order of the learned Trial Court,” the court said.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.Alok Bhachawat, Mr. Jeeva Nandan, Mr.Anmol Gupta, Advs

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.Charanjeet Singh Bakhshi, APP for UT Chandigarh with Mr. Amit Sahni, APP for the State

Title: DR BALWINDER KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1294

Click Here To Read Order