ANIL KUMAR GAYEN Vs. STATE OF W B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Code,) 1973 for quashing the criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No. 685/95 pending before the learned Sub-DivisionalJudicial Magistrate (in short SDJM), Contai arising out of Ramnagar P.S. Case No. 97 dated 18.8.95 under Sections 409/406/420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) and cha'rge-sheet bearing No. 94/ 97 dated 15.12.1997.

(2.) The facts of the case is that the First Information Report (in short FIR) was lodged by the Secretary of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education before the Officer-in-Charge, Ramnagar Police Station alleging that the accused Anil Kumar Gayen was entrusted with examination of 302 English answer scripts of Madhyamik Examination, 1995. The complainant received certain documents which are xerox copy of anonymous letters in Bengali written to one Tapasi Karan baring Roll 2792 No. 0041 along with xerox copy of page 6 of answer script in English and similar papers addressed to Pintu Das and others asking them to come to the residence of the said examiner along with the same pen used by the candidates at the time of writing their answers in the English answer script. The answer scripts of the said two candidates along with other candidates were in exclusive possession of Sri Gayen from 2.4.1998 to 2.5.1998. It is clear that by xeroxing the answer scripts he sent route direction of his residence to the candidates with ulterior motive of awarding inflated marks to them against payment of money by such candidates. The report of the head examiner on the standard of evaluation of answer scripts in English reveal that the accused Anil Kumar Gayen did not follow the time schedule fixed by the Board for submission of answer script with marks. It was also detected that he gave inflated marks to huge number of candidates of Batch III. On the basis of such FIR Ramnagar P.S. Case No. 97 dated 18.8.1995 under Sections 406/409/420 of I.P.C. was started against the accused petitioner and after complejing investigation the Investigating Officer (I.O.) attached to CID, West Bengal submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner under Sections 406/409/420/511 of I.P.C.

(3.) Mrs. Goswami for the petitioner contended that there was no delay at all in returning the answer scripts after examination giving marks. There was only one days delay and this delay cannot be termed as delay in returning the answer scripts according to norms of the Board. No inflated marks were given to the candidates and the candidate who received highest mark in English is 21 and the marks given to the candidates almost tallies with the standards of Board's scrutiny of marks. There was no material to show who sustained wrongful loss and who gained from the alleged act of the accused. There was nothing to show that the petitioner received money and awarded inflated marks and, therefore, gain by this petitioner is absolutely unacceptable. There was no breach of trust as alleged. No question of defalcation of public money arises. There is no element of the alleged offence under Sections 406/409/420 of IP.C. against the petitioner.