Crl. Rev. No.1045 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.1045 of 2009 Date of Decision: 06.04.2010 Darshan Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a revision petition against the Order dated 02.04.2009 passed by Special Judge, Moga, vide which, the charges have been framed against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the same, submitted that no sanction was obtained before proceeding with the prosecution. Reply has been filed by the State of Punjab. As per the preliminary objection, the present case has been registered by the respondent on the receipt of secret information that petitioner-Darshan Singh, who is a public servant, has produced copy of certificate P-1 at the time of his promotion. This certificate has been issued by the Registrar Examination Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya (University) on Crl. Rev. No.1045 of 2009 2 06.06.1990 at serial No.901232 and the same was sent for verification. Letter bearing No.3312 dated 13.05.2005 was received by the respondent, in which, it was categorically stated that the name of Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya (University) was changed into Sapuranand University since 1975. It was further stated that the certificate is a forged certificate. During investigation, statements of Vishnu Ram and Raghunandan Parshand, employees of Supranand University were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C in which, they have stated that certificate P-1 is a forged certificate. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet against the petitioner was presented in the Court of Special Judge, Faridkot. Charges against the petitioner has been framed. It is submitted in para 13 of the reply that the petitioner has already retired from Government Service and no sanction is required for prosecuting the petitioner. It is further stated that three witnesses, out of the seven witnesses, have already been examined. Accordingly, I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) Judge 06.04.2010 gurpreet