STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. VIVEK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has filed this revision against the judgment of acquittal recorded by Juvenile Justice Board, Shimla (for short 'Board') on 1.6.2007 in case No.38/2005.

(2.) THE respondent was prosecuted under Section 7 of the "H.P. Unfair Practice Means in H.P.U., Board and Other Specific Examination Act, 1984". The prosecution case in brief is that on 15.3.2005 A.S.I. Amarjeet, along with HHC Roop Singh, was on patrol duty, Centre Incharge of School submitted a written complaint Ext.PW-1/A to them. As per Ext.PW-1/A at about 4:10 p.m. while the examination of Mathematics paper of Class-8 was in the progress, a student named Vivek Roll No.56232 ran away from the verandah where he was sitting Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes along with his answer sheet bearing No.688291. He was chased but he jumped over the wall and ran away. On the basis of complaint Ext.PW-1/A the police registered F.I.R. No.46/2005 Ext.PW-9/A. The case was investigated by PW-9 A.S.I. Amarjeet. The respondent was arrested on 16.3.2005 and answer sheet Ext.PW-1/F and question paper Ext.PW-1/G were allegedly recovered from him. The respondent was below 18 years of age on the day of occurrence and, therefore, he was produced before the Board and was released on bail 17.3.2005. After conclusion of the investigation, challan was presented before the Board, notice of accusation was put to the respondent, under Section 7 of "the H.P. Unfair Practice Means in H.P.U., Board and Other Specific Examination Act, 1984", who pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined nine witnesses. The respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. His defence is denial simplicitor. He did not lead any evidence in defence. The Board acquitted the respondent on 1.6.2007, hence, the State has filed the present revision petition.

(3.) THE recovery memo Ext.PW-1/H is witnessed by PW-1 Nand Lal and PW-2 Surinder Kaur. PW-1 Nand Lal in his cross examination has stated that respondent did not hand over question paper and answer sheet to the police in his presence. PW-2 Smt.Surinder Kaur has stated that answer sheet and question paper were handed over by the mother of the respondent to PW-3 Lajwanti Sharma. She was not present there and police took into possession those items vide memo Ext.PW-1/H. PW-9 Amarjeet Singh, Investigating Officer, has stated that recovery memo was prepared in H.R.T.C. Workshop, Nalagarh. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that question paper and answer sheet of Mathematics paper were taken away by the respondent on 15.3.2005 from the examination centre. The Board has noticed material contradictions in the prosecution story and has rightly appreciated the material on record. In revision the scope of interference is limited. The appreciation of evidence is not permissible unless the judgment is perverse and view taken by the Court below is not at all possible from the material on record. The present case does not fall in that category. The Board has rightly appreciated the material on record and has recorded a finding of fact. The view taken by the Board is possible which calls for no interference. Moreover, notice of accusation was put to the respondent under Section 7 of "the H.P. Unfair Practice Means in H.P.U., Board and Other Specific Examination Act, 1984" whereas the name of the Act is the Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Malpractices at University, Board or other Specified Examinations Act, 1984. This has not been disputed by learned Additional Advocate General. Thus, even the notice of accusation was not put to the respondent correctly. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.