The Delhi High Court granted a three-month extension to conclude the trial in the Paper Leak Case. The extension was provided after considering the communication from the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rouse Avenue, indicating progress in the case. The trial court was directed to expedite proceedings, aiming for a day-to-day basis, with adjournments only for unavoidable reasons. The case involves serious allegations against nine accused, including a registrar accused of leaking the paper to a co-conspirator.
![[Paper Leak Case] Delhi HC Granted Three-month Extension to Conclude the Trial](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MicrosoftTeams-image-40.png?resize=500%2C300&ssl=1)
NEW DELHI: Today (2nd May): The Delhi High Court has recently granted a three-month extension to conclude the trial of judges involved in a paper leak case. The court has directed the trial to be conducted daily to ensure expeditious proceedings. This decision comes after the trial could not be concluded within the initial timeframe set by the court. The case involves the leakage of the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Preliminary Examination in 2017.
READ ALSO: Delhi High Court Upholds Tribunal Decisions: Affirms High Courts’ Writ Jurisdiction
Justice DK Sharma’s recent order acknowledged progress in the case as indicated by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rouse Avenue. Granting a further three months’ extension, the High Court directed the trial court to expedite proceedings, aiming for a day-to-day basis. Despite previous directions, the matter remained pending, prompting additional submissions from Charanjit Singh Bakhshi, representing Union Territory of Chandigarh, and advocate Amit Sahni.
Background
The paper leak case originated from an FIR ordered to be registered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in September 2017. The FIR was filed based on a plea by a candidate named Suman. The matter was later transferred to Delhi by the Supreme Court in 2021, following a Transfer Petition filed by the accused, Dr. Balwinder Kumar Sharma.
The prosecution alleges that the accused, a public servant, dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated and converted the question paper of the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Preliminary Examination, 2017, which was entrusted to him. The accused is further accused of allowing co-accused Sunita to have access to the leaked paper. The prosecution argues that these actions constitute an offense under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
READ ALSO: Delhi High Court Directs MCD|| Calls For Improvement
In January of this year, the Delhi High Court directed the District and Sessions Court, Rouse Avenue, to conduct the trial on a day-to-day basis and conclude it within three months. However, the trial could not be completed within the set timeframe, leading to a request for an extension of at least six months to decide the matter due to the voluminous nature of the case.
The Delhi High Court, taking into consideration the communication from the Principal District and Sessions Judge, granted a further three-month extension to conclude the trial. The court emphasized the importance of conducting the trial on a day-to-day basis and allowing adjournments only in unavoidable circumstances. The court excluded the summer vacation period from the granted extension.
Advocate Bakhshi emphasized the seriousness of the allegations against the accused, highlighting their constant communication via mobile phones and the possession of the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial) paper. He asserted that there exists substantial evidence, both documentary and electronic, against the accused, which cannot be overlooked at this stage.
During the proceedings in Delhi HC, Charanjit Singh Bakhshi, Add. PP for UT/Chandigarh, alongside advocate Amit Sahni, argued that the case is straightforward. They contended that the accused, being a public servant, unlawfully misused the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Preliminary Examination paper, which was entrusted to him, for personal gain. By granting access to the co-accused, Sunita, the accused violated Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
READ ALSO: Delhi High Court Revises Senior Advocate Designation Rules
Bakhshi argued that the scope of revision is to scrutinize serious irregularities in the impugned order and urged the dismissal of the present petition. The nine accused in the case include a registrar involved in leaking the paper to Co-Sunita, with the remaining individuals being either candidates or their relatives who received the paper.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
