PREM SHANKAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the peti ­tioner and learned Additional Government Advocate.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing of an FIR at case crime No. 199 of 2009, under section 4 -b read with 7/10 of Uttar Pradesh Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998, police station Geanpur, lodged by the Dis ­trict Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh on 21.3.2009.

(3.) IT was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the exami ­nation was to be conducted, at 7.30 AM, hence there was no question of persons gathering at 4.00 AM for being informed about the answers to the questions paper. We fail to appreciate this argument, as there was nothing improbable in the peti ­tioner's calling the concerned persons at 4.00 AM for furnishing them with the an ­swers to the paper for price if the petitioner wanted to assist in the use of unfair means by the examinees. Also nothing would turn on the argu ­ment of the learned Counsel for the peti ­tioner that there was no averment in the report of the Centre Superintendent and Centre Magistrate of using unfair means between 2.3.2009 and 26.3.2009. That could not give rise to an inference that no such incident as alleged could have taken place in the morning.