Criminal Revision No. 2190 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2190 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: November 10, 2009 Rachhpal Chand Sharma .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. M. S. Khaira, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dharminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. Aggrieved against the order dated 20.7.2009, passed by Special Judge, Barnala, framing charge against the petitioner, he is before this court in the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in the present case cannot possibly be arrayed as an accused and tried for the alleged offences committed by him, as he had merely discharged his official duty. Initially, he had returned the document when presented for registration. It was only after the communication from the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) that the same was registered. In terms of settled legal position, the petitioner could not possibly refuse the registration of a document and merely if the same has been registered by him, no malafide can be attached to it. Reliance was placed upon Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala and another v. Krishan Gopal Kataria and another, 1997(1) PLJ 308; Hari Singh and another v. Sub Registrar, Narnaul and others, 1999(1) Civil Court Cases 1 (P&H); Criminal Revision No. 636 of 1998-- Ved Parkash Gupta v. State of Punjab, decided on 3.8.1998 and Criminal Revision No. 2430 of 2004 –Satinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, decided on 22.2.2006. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that there was no direction issued by the Financial Commissioner to register the document. He had merely directed for registration thereof as per rules. It is the case where statements of five out of twelve prosecution witnesses have already been recorded and after the commencement of trial, the order framing charge should not be quashed as the court below can very well appreciate the evidence and acquit the Criminal Revision No. 2190 of 2009 [2] accused in case no offence is made out. The issue sought to be raised by the petitioner can be appreciated only after the evidence is recorded. Once the trial of other accused in the FIR is in progress, there is no reason to isolate the petitioner therefrom. Further, it is a case where charges are not only under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, rather under the Prevention of Corruption Act also. In the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, in none of the cases the order framing charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act was set aside. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Vide order dated 20.7.2009, besides other accused, charges were framed against the petitioner under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and 13 (1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, all what was quashed was the charges framed under Section 420 IPC. In none of the cases, the order framing charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act was set aside and further once the trial is already in progress, in my opinion, at this stage, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge November 10, 2009 mk