RAHUL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(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 26/7/2015. 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 Sec. 420 r/ 34 of IPC and Ss. 4, 5 and 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 26/7/2015. 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. Sec. 2(b) of the said Act defining 'Government' means the State Government of Andhra Pradesh only. Definition under sec. 2(e) 'Public examination' means any examination conducted by the State Government and does not include Central Government. Ss. 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.