The interpretation of the term 'examination' under the Maharashtra Prevention of Mal Practices at University, Board and other Specified Examinations Act, 1982 and the necessity of a notification in the official gazette by the State Government to invoke section 7 of the Act.

1. The anticipatory bail application No. 1851 of 2015 is moved by the applicants-accused Gajanan Lande and Rajiv Lande for pre-arrest bail as the offence is registered at C.R. No. II-2 of 2015 with the Tarapur police station, Palghar, at the instance of one Suresh Govindrao Bhamre on 18.10.2015. The anticipatory bail application No. 1852 of 2015 is moved by the applicant-accused Gajanan Lande for pre-arrest bail as the offence is registered at C.R. No. II-21 of 2015 with the Manikpur police station, Palghar, at the instance of one Dinesh Narayan Pashte on 18.10.2015. Initially the complaints were registered under sections 188 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as also under section 7 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Mal Practices at University, Board and other Specified Examinations Act, 1982. However, later on, charges under sections 420, 464, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code were added.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that both the informants are public servants. The office of the revenue department wanted to appoint clerks-cum-typists in the said department in District Palghar. So, the examination was conducted on 18.10.2015 afternoon. The candidates who were appearing for the examination were issued admit cards and they were instructed not to carry cell phone and other electronic articles with them.

In Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1851 of 2015, 216 candidates appeared for the examination. The invigilator found that one candidate Sangita Narayan Suradkar had kept cellphone on her lap and it was seized. There was no message in the phone and therefore she was allowed to write the paper. The said cellphone was handed over to a police officer. The examination started at around 11 am. At around 12.45 pm, the police constable informed that on her cellphone, answers of question paper for which she was appearing were received from one number 7219038682. Sangita was therefore arrested on the spot and the cellphone along with the SIM card was seized.

In Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1852 of 2015, 17 candidates appeared for the examination at Vartak high school. One candidate by name Arun Shamrao Gavli entered the examination hall at 10.55 hours. He was checked by the complainant who was in charge. All the candidates were informed that they should not keep any cellphone or any other articles with them. At around 11.30 am, the movements of the said Arun Gavli were found suspicious and on his examination, it was found that he had tied a cellphone with a rubber band below his knee joint The video recording of the incident was done and on examination, it was found that on his cellphone, messages about answers were received from other cellphone number 9168999354. The candidate Arun Gavli was arrested. After the arrest, the police investigated the offence and they found that there was a racket about copying in that examination. The students who were appearing for the examination were promised that the answers of questions would be supplied to them by SMS on their respective cellphones at the time of examination, so that they could clear the examination and get the job. For that purpose, the applicants/accused and the co-accused charged Rs. 2 lakhs from each candidate.

3. The learned Counsel for the applicants/accused submitted that the applicants are innocent. They have not committed any offence. The allegations against them are false. The names of the applicants is not mentioned in the FIR. They are not connected in any manner with the commission of offence. The learned Counsel further submitted that section 7 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Mal Practices at University, Board and other Specified Examinations Act, 1982 (for short, 'the said Act') is not applicable in the present cases because the said examination cannot be said as an 'examination' under the term defined under section 2(b) of the said Act. He submitted that it is necessary in order to attract the said offence for the Government to issue a notification in th