Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(UT) 3044
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J
Dimple and others – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1157 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Mrs. Chetna Latwal
For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Bisht
Prospective candidates as examinees are not exempt from charges under the unfair means act despite not being named in the FIR.
Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998 - Section 2(b) and 2(d) - Applicants were prospective candidates for selection as examinees, their non-naming in FIR does not exonerate them from the offenses under the Act as they benefited from unfair means supplied for the public examination. (Paras 1, 5, 11)
(B) Criminal Law - The emotional impact on a candidate's future does not form a legal basis to exonerate from prosecution when the trial is pending. (Paras 13)
Facts of the case:
The applicants were summoned to trial under the Act after allegations of unauthorized benefit from supplied examination materials, despite their non-naming in the FIR.
Findings of Court:
The benefits and status of the applicants warrant a complete trial to ascertain their liability under the relevant provisions of the law.
Issues: The court examined the scope of the term 'examinee' and the implications of non-naming in the FIR within the context of unfair means.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that being an examinee entails responsibility, and arguments based on emotional repercussions cannot hinder legal proceedings.
Result: The application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicants' summoning for trial in unfair means case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. definitions of examinee and unfair means in the act. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. non-naming in fir does not eliminate liability. (Para 5 , 11) |
| 4. emotional repercussions do not influence legal outcomes. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. application dismissed for lack of merit. (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGEMENT
Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
The present applicants were the prospective candidates, who were suppose to participate in the process of selection being conducted by the State Public Service Commission, for the post of Lekhpal and Patwari. As against them, the proceedings by way of a Special Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2023, State Vs. Sanjeev Prakash Chaturvedi and others, have been drawn to be tried for the offences under Section 3/9 of the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998, (hereinafter to be called as an “Act of 1998)”.
2. In pursuance to the initiation of the aforesaid proceedings, the summoning order has been issued as against th the present applicants, being summoning order dated 6 April, 2023, whereby they have been summoned to be tried for the offence under Section 3/9 of the Act, 1998, in Special Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2023, State Vs. Sanjeev Prakash Chaturvedi and others.
3. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants, Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, is from the following perspective that :-
i. That since the applicants, herein, are the prospective candidates, who intended to participate in the selection process for the post of Lekhpal and Patwari, they would be falling within the definition of “examinee” as provided under Section 2 (b) of the Act of 1998. The same is extracted hereunder :-
“(b) “examinee” means a person who has been granted permission to appear in a public examination and includes a person authorised to act as scribe on his behalf;”
4. On a simplicitor interpretation to the terms ‘examinee’, herein, it means the permission which has been granted by the examining authority to a candidate to participate in the public examination, and it is under that authority, that a candidate holds a right to participate in the selection process. It is not in dispute, that the present applicants, who are the prospective candidates, and they were the examinee for the process of selection, which was being conducted by the State Public Service Commission for the post of Lekhpal and Patwari.
5. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants is, that since the applicants are not named in the FIR, they cannot be said to be instrumental at all in commission of the offence under Section 3/9 of Act of 1998.
6. In order to answer the aforesaid argument, as to whether, what will be the effect of not naming of the present applicants in the FIR, and as also argued by the learned Senior Counsel, as to what would amount to be unfair means for the purposes of attracting the provisions contained under Section 3 to be read with Section 9 of Act of 1998, would be only confined to the “examinees”, which no doubt, the present applicants are. The term ‘unfair means’ as defined under Section 2 (d) of the Act of 1998, which is extracted hereunder, it observes that the examinee herein would mean an examinee while answering the question in a public examination or any person, who unauthorisedly helps directly or indirectly by supplying any material written, recorded, copied or printed to be used in the conduct of the examination. Section 2 (d) of the Act of 1998, is extracted hereunder :-
“(d) “unfair means” in relation to an examinee while answering questions in a public examination means the unauthorized help from any person directly or indirectly, or from any material written, recorded, copied or printed, in any form whatsoever, or the use of any unauthorized telephonic, wireless or electronic or other instrument or gadget.”
7. It is not in dispute, that the status of the present applicants would be within the definition con
