IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.Revision No. 75 of 2011 Judgment Reserved on 1st July, 2011 Date of Decision July ,2011 ________________________________________________________ Chandra Sharma ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ….Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No ________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2 to 4: Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate ____________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J The petitioner challenges the charge framed by the learned Special Judge, Mandi against him for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B read with Section 34 IPC and Section 13(1) (A) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no sanction on the record or offences under the Indian Penal Code and in this event, the trial cannot proceed further. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sheetla Sahai and others, (2009) 8 SCC 617. 3. There is no dispute with this proposition of law. However, what I need to observe is that the charge in this case has been framed as far back as on 14.12.2010 and this petition was preferred only on 2.4.2011 when the trial was in progress. Learned Additional Advocate General states that the evidence is now practically complete. 4. In these circumstances, I do not intend to interfere in the proceedings before the learned trial Court. It will be open to the petitioner herein to show in the event, if any order is passed against her or in case of her conviction that the non-grant of sanction has caused grave miscarriage of justice and that such sanction was in fact withheld, for the reasons that there was no complicity or involvement of the petitioner. Petition disposed of. July , 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), (aks) Judge 3