IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SURENDER, J.
Rajul Kumar & Others – Appellants
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.6521 of 2016
Decided on : 04-08-2023
A.P. PUBLIC EXAMINATIONS (PREVENTION OF MALPRACTICES AND UNFAIR MEANS) ACT, 1997 - SECTIONS 2(E), 2(F), 3, 4, 5, 8 - PUBLIC EXAMINATION - UNFAIR MEANS - UNAUTHORIZED POSSESSION AND DISCLOSURE OF QUESTION PAPER - PREVENTION OF LEAKAGE BY PERSON ENTRUSTED WITH EXAMINATION WORK - PENALTY - CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS - APPLICABILITY - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners were caught using unfair means in a common entrance examination conducted by the Central Government. They were charged under Sections 4, 5, and 8 of the A.P. Public Examinations (Prevention of Malpractices and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (the Act of 1997). The petitioners challenged the applicability of the Act to Central Government examinations, arguing that the Act only applies to examinations conducted by the State Government.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Act of 1997 is applicable to Central Government examinations. The court interpreted the definition of 'Public Examination' under Section 2(e) of the Act to include examinations conducted by the Central Government or any other authority or body for the purpose of admission or selection for appointment. The court also held that the petitioners' actions constituted 'unfair means' under Section 2(f) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Act of 1997 is applicable to Central Government examinations? 2. Whether the petitioners' actions constituted 'unfair means' under the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of 'Public Examination' under Section 2(e) of the Act includes examinations conducted by the Central Government or any other authority or body for the purpose of admission or selection for appointment. 2. 'Unfair means' under Section 2(f) of the Act includes adopting unfair means or taking unauthorized help either through wireless, electronic, or any other instrument in any manner.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the applicability of the Act of 1997 to Central Government examinations.
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A2 to A4 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.766 of 2016 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad.
2. A complaint was filed by the defacto complainant/2nd respondent namely Amitabh Rathi who was the Lieutenant Colonel, Administrative Office for Commandant, 1-EME Centre, 3 Tr Battalion workshop shed, Hyderabad. A common entrance examination was organized on 26.07.2015. During examination, A1 was found using unfair means while writing examination. On enquiry, it was observed that there was involvement of the petitioners/ A2 to A4 in the malpractice. Basing on the complaint, crime was registered vide Crime No.72 of 2015 under Section 420 r/ 34 of IPC and Sections 4, 5 & 8 of A.P. Public Examinations (Prevention of Malpractices and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (for short ‘the Act of 1997’).
The investigation revealed that A1 and these petitioners/A2 to A4 were preparing for writing common entrance which was scheduled on 26.07.2015. 1st petitioner/A2 used his previous contacts with one VP Singh, who has leaked answers for the Tech and GD tests being conducted on the said date in advance through mobile phone communication. He received answers for the tests on his mobile phone and the same was shared with A1 and petitioners 2 and 3, who are A3 and A4. During examination, all the accused were caught and the telephone messages and other communication revealed that answers were provided to these petitioners well in advance and the petitioners were answering questions on the basis of earlier information, which amounts to malpractice and unfair means adopted during examination.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Act of 1997 is not attracted to Central Government examinations conducted in Andhra Pradesh. Section 2(b) of the said Act defining ‘Government’ means the State Government of Andhra Pradesh only. Definition under section 2(e) ‘Public examination’ means any examination conducted by the State Government and does not include Central Government. Sections 4, 5 and 8 of the Act are not attracted and there is no evidence of cheating, for which reason, proceedings have to be quashed.
4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed quashing of the application and argued that the petitioners were indulging in malpractice and liable to be prosecuted.
5. The definition of ‘Public Examination’ is extracted hereunder:
Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, the expression, ‘Public Service’ means services in any office or establishments of,-
(a) the Government;
(b) a local authority;
(c) a Corporation or undertaking wholly owned or controlled by the State Government;
(d) a body established under any law made by the Legislature of the State whether incorporated or not, including a University;
(e) any other body established by the State Government or by a society registered under any law relating to the registration of societies for the time being in force, and receiving funds from the State Government either fully or partly for its maintenance or any educational institution whether registered or not but receiving aid from the Government;
(f) “Unfair means” in relation to an examinee appearing in a public examination means the unauthorised help from any person in any manner or from any material written, recorded, printed or reproduced in any form whatsoever or the unauthorised use of any
The A.P. Public Examinations (Prevention of Malpractices and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 is applicable to Central Government examinations, and the use of unfair means in such examinations is prohibited a....
The emotional impact on a candidate's career should not exclude them from prosecution, and the establishment of the offence should be based on evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
What is to be looked into under the power of judicial review is whether there was any procedural violation involved in the entire gamut of events.
The examination conducted by the Railway Board is governed by the Central Act, rendering the application of the U.P. Act for unfair means erroneous.
The court emphasized the necessity of corroborative evidence in cases of examination fraud, reinforcing that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
If a candidate is found in mala fide possession of any material as indicated in the Rules, which is relevant to the subject examination, he shall be disqualified from appearing in any of the Universi....
The court upheld the university's decision to cancel examinations due to proven use of unfair means, affirming that due process was followed, according to the governing ordinance.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.