CRR-2490-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] :::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-2490-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:14 .12.2011 Arun Pal ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition is directed against order dated 02.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana by which charges against the petitioner under various provisions of the IPC have been framed. It may be mentioned at the outset that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands because not only in para no.3 of the present petition he had averred that he was working as a Peon in the company but same also convessed during the course of arguments, whereas the learned State Counsel had alleged that the petitioner was employed as a Salesman. In view thereof, vide order dated 17.11.2011, this Court had directed the petitioner to produce his letter of appointment. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has not produced the letter of appointment of the petitioner yet it has been candidly submitted that the petitioner was employed as a Salesman and not as a Peon. Besides the above, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no offence is made out against the petitioner even as per the recovery CRR-2490-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] :::::::: memo (Annexure P-2), whereas learned State Counsel has submitted that not only the Chassis and Engine number were changed but the registration number of the vehicle was also changed by the petitioner. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and I am of the view that in the above facts and circumstances, no interference is called for in the order dated 02.08.2011 by which charges have been framed against the petitioner. Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed. December 14 , 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE