Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 840 (DEL)

LAXMI SHARMA v. STATE, NCT OF DELHI

2004-09-29

B.N.CHATURVEDI

body2004
B. N. CHATURVEDI, J. ( 1 ) THE FIR unfolds that on an information that the question papers of PMT (preliminary examination) to be held on 11th of April, 2004 by CBSE, were on sale at a price of Rs. 7/8 lacs per candidate at B-51, New Ashok nagar, known as "pilli Kothi", a raid was conducted by crime Branch police, and copies of some question papers were recovered from co-accused, Vikas and Rakesh. Two sets of such question papers were taken as sample and seized by police. On coming out of the house, the police party came across with 13 students named in the FIR, who informed that they had been called at the aforesaid premises at 8. 00 p. m. to memorise the answers of the question papers. One set of recovered question papers was taken to the office of CBSE, Preet Vihar by the concerned police officer and the Controller of examinations, CBSE, on comparison, told that the seized question papers tallied with the question papers in his custody. ( 2 ) A case under Sections 419/120b read with sections 408/409/420/380 IPC was, eventually, registered. ( 3 ) IN the course of investigation, on a disclosure by co-accused Bani Singh Gautam, petitioner. Laxmi sharma, was arrested. From the statements of four candidates, namely, Mohit Gupta, Niharika Mehta, Anamika dhuria and Neha Gandhi from Rajasthan, and also the statements of Dr. Subhash Dhuria, father of Anamika dhuria, Suresh Gupta, uncle of Mohit Gupta, and Harish mehta, father of Niharika Mehta, it was gathered that the petitioner had represented to them that she had access to a person who would be giving the question papers of CBSE aipmt (preliminary and main exams) for Rs. 9 lacs, out of which Rs. 2 lacs was to be paid after preliminary examination and the balance of Rs. 7 lacs after the main examination. On being agreeable to the deal, all the aforesaid four candidates accompanied by said Dr. Subhash dhuria, Suresh Gupta and Harish Mehta as well as the petitioner reached Delhi on 10th of April, 2004 from ganga Nagar, Rajasthan. They were received in Delhi by the husband of the petitioner and taken to B-51, New ashok Nagar. On being agreeable to the deal, all the aforesaid four candidates accompanied by said Dr. Subhash dhuria, Suresh Gupta and Harish Mehta as well as the petitioner reached Delhi on 10th of April, 2004 from ganga Nagar, Rajasthan. They were received in Delhi by the husband of the petitioner and taken to B-51, New ashok Nagar. There, they were told that papers will be available only at about 7/8 p. m. The candidates and their father/uncle thereafter went to a market for a while and returned to B-51, New Ashok Nagar at about 7. 00 p. m. , when raiding party came across with them. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, pleading for bail, contended that the whole prosecution case against the petitioner is based on a disclosure statement of co- accused, Bani Singh Gautam, but no such disclosure statement is available there on trial court record. He further contended that no recovery of any incriminating material was effected at the instance of the petitioner and that she being a woman languishing in jail for about 5 months with effect from 26th of April, 2004, deserves to be released on bail. His further contention was that the Sessions Court dismissed the petitioner s bail application overlooking the fact that the ingredients of sections 420/408/409/380/120-B IPC were totally missing and no case was made out against the petitioner even if the statements of parents/guardians of the four candidates from Ganga Nagar were to be taken as correct. ( 5 ) FROM the statements of the four candidates, namely, Mohit Gupta, Niharika Mehta, Anamika Dhuria and neha Gandhi, and their parents/guardians, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner had access to one of the person responsible for leakage of question papers for aipmt (preliminary examination ). She appears to have had joined hands with her co-accused, who played pivotal role in masterminding and giving effect to the sordid game of question paper leakage for making fast buck by arranging for sale thereof to various candidates. Swayed by consideration of securing success to her daughter in the ensuing examinations for medical courses, with added thought of a handsome monetary gain appears to have had worked too heavily on the mind of the petitioner which motivated her to set out to find the aforesaid candidates for self aggrandisement. Swayed by consideration of securing success to her daughter in the ensuing examinations for medical courses, with added thought of a handsome monetary gain appears to have had worked too heavily on the mind of the petitioner which motivated her to set out to find the aforesaid candidates for self aggrandisement. The fact that the petitioner held a gazetted post with the Rajasthan Government in the field of education, makes her alleged role of procuring candidates for sale of the question papers liable to be viewed much more seriously as compared to her co-accused. Though, she is shown to have had stepped in at the last stage of the criminal conspiracy hatched and given effect to by her co-accused, this fact would not appear to make any material difference as far as her complicity in the case is concerned. ( 6 ) IN the context of argument by learned counsel for the petitioner that the ingredients of Sections 420/408/409/380/120-B IPC are missing in the instant case, I would refrain from embarking upon a detailed discussion on this aspect. It should suffice to note that the alleged leakage of the question papers originated from illegal designs and a criminal conspiracy was hatched to give effect to such illegal designs with a view to make easy money by dishonest means. It is left to the trial court to find what charges, if any, are made out on the facts of the case. To accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no criminal liability can be fastened on the petitioner for whatever she is alleged to have done, would amount to justifying her all alleged actions as lawful which would be difficult to assimilate. ( 7 ) RAMIFICATIONS of question paper leakage are far reaching as the efficacy of entire system is thereby put in jeopardy. The role allegedly played by the petitioner in the matter is liable to be viewed very seriously with particular reference to the position she occupied. Larger public interest must overweigh any consideration from an individualistic point of view. The witnesses connecting the petitioner with conspiratorial acts of her co-accused are yet to be examined. In the event of her release on bail, possibility of her tampering with evidence cannot be ruled out. The petitioner in the circumstances cannot be admitted to bail at this stage. The application is, therefore, dismissed. The witnesses connecting the petitioner with conspiratorial acts of her co-accused are yet to be examined. In the event of her release on bail, possibility of her tampering with evidence cannot be ruled out. The petitioner in the circumstances cannot be admitted to bail at this stage. The application is, therefore, dismissed. ( 8 ) OBSERVATIONS herein above reflect only prima facie view of the matter with no bearing on the merits of the case.