Criminal Misc. No. M-26311 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-26311 of 2009 Date of decision: 18.9.2009 Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner v. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Rajesh Batra, Advocate for the petitioner. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner in the present petition is aggrieved only against the observations made by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon in his order dated 12.5.2009, while upholding the discharge of accused-respondent No. 2 for alleged commission of offence under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, `the Act') to the effect that there is no evidence on file connecting the accused with the offence. It is a case where the petitioner had initially got the FIR registered against respondent No. 2 under Sections 419 and 469 IPC. However, as the police authorities did not register the case for alleged commission of offence under Section 66 of the Act, the petitioner filed a complaint in which the accused- respondent No. 2 was discharged. Against the order of discharge in the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 66 of the Act, the petitioner filed a revision before the learned court below, where the order of discharge was upheld. It is in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, upholding the order of discharge of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, that certain observations have been made regarding no evidence being on record connecting the accused with the offence. As the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner is innocuous, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice of motion to the respondents. The only issue raised before the court was challenge to the order of discharge of accused-respondent No. 2 for an offence under Section 66 of the Act. Any observations made in the order, upholding the order of discharge, are tentative. Any case set up by the petitioner in the complaint lodged to the police, Criminal Misc. No. M-26311 of 2009 [2] on the basis of which challan has been presented and charges have also been framed, will be considered by the concerned court on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties. With the above observations, the present petition is disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 18.9.2009 mk