The Delhi High Court in the case Dr Balwinder Kumar Sharma v. State of UT Chandigarh observed and has upheld that the charges framed against former Registrar i.e., the Recruitment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Dr. Balwinder Kumar Sharma, in connection with the paper leak of Haryana Civil Services i.e., the Judicial Branch Preliminary Examination, 2017. The bench headed by Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma in the case observed and has stated that as per the record, Sharma was in possession of the question paper immediately before the alleged leak. The court stated that the case is of a very sensitive nature and the evidence which is required to be led for the purpose of proving the case is either digital or documentary in nature. The court observed and has upheld the order passed on January 31, 2020, wherein charges were framed against Sharma by a sessions court in Chandigarh. The Supreme Court in 2021 allowed the plea moved by Sharma and has transferred the trial to the national capital. The present case is now pending adjudication before the Court of Learned Principal District & Sessions Judge-Cum- Special Judge, the PC Act/CBI, Rouse Avenue Court. The corut suspended Sharma and transferred to Ropar by the Punjab and Haryana High Court immediately after the paper leak. Later, he was arrested. In the present case, the Chargesheet was filed against Sharma under Section 8, Section 9, Section 13(1) (d) reading with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 409, Section 420, Section 120B and Section 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court stated while dismissing the plea moved by Sharma that at the stage of charges, the court is required to examine the record produced by the prosecution and the Cr.P.C. does not confer any right upon the accused to produce any document at that stage. The court stated that in exceptional cases where a document may show the prosecution as preposterous, the same can be considered while depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances. The court stated that in the said case there is no such material. Adding to it, the court stated that case of the prosecution against the petitioner herein, who was working as a Registrar Recruitment is that he was in constant touch with the co-accused Sunita. Thus, the allegations of the prosecution of the petitioner and the accused being in constant touch is revealed by the following charts of the call details of their alleged known and secret phone calls. Further, the court stated that in cases where digital or electronic evidence is available, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown at the initial stage. The court stated that the jurisdiction of the Court while entertaining the revision petition is also very limited, the Court can interfere in the challenged order or only if there is any serious illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the order of the learned Trial Court. Thus, this court do not find any illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the order of the learned Trial Court.