Years, R/o Jalka, P.s. Kotkasim Dsitrict Alwar State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p v. For

Order

1. Instant revision petition is preferred by accused Kishan Chand S/o Shri Hari Singh aggrieved from order dated 26.09.2023 in sessions case No. 40/2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Alwar whereby a charge under Section 3/10 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Measures for Prevention of Unfair means in Recruitment) Act, 2022 and Section 420/120-B of IPC framed against the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated by police only on the ground that accused Arun has sent some messages to petitioner on Whatsapp. He further submitted that this petitioner has neither replied to the messages of Arun to commit any malpractice or fraud nor forwarded the messages to any other person. He also submitted that the location of the present petitioner at the time of examination was at other place and not a [2025:RJ-JP:16493] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1258/2024] single iota of evidence is available to connect petitioner with Arun on day of Examination. At last, he submitted that the duty lies upon the Trial Court to consider the material on record before framing the charge but the Trial Court has committed serious error while ignoring the principle of law required to be considered at the stage of framing of charge.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

5. On basis of report submitted by Anil Kumar Sharma, Centre Superintendent, Sh. Hardev Das Senior Secondary School, Alwar about use of unfair means by a candidate Arun Kumar Yadav while appearing in RO/EO examination organized by RPSC, an FIR No. 383/2023 was registered at P.S. N.E.B. District Alwar. During investigation, it has come to the notice that candidate Arun Kumar has used mobile phone to click pictures of question paper and forwarded the same to present petitioner Kishan Chand on mobile No. 9899624644. On interrogation, it has come to the notice that this petitioner has deleted the chat. After investigation, involvement of present petitioner with Arun was found and a charge-sheet has been filed against Arun Kumar Yadav and present petitioner.

6. A perusal of material on record clearly indicate that a mobile phone was found near examination hall and same was used to forward pictures of question paper after clicking by camera during time of examination. As per mobile details of Arun Kumar the pictures were forwarded to mobile number used by present [2025:RJ-JP:16493] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1258/2024] petitioner. Herein this case, when this petitioner was interrogated, by the time he deleted the conversation or chat details. Section 201 IPC deals with causing disappearance of evidence related to an offence. This section plays a pivotal role in ensuring that destruction or concealment of evidence does not obstruct justice. 7. The principles of law at the stage of charge were considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh : (1977) 4 SCC 39 and Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. :(1979) 3 SCC 4 and were referred and relied in case of P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. : (2010) 2 SCC 398. It was held that at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application.

8. Again in case of State By Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, Bengaluru Vs. M. R. Hiremath : (2019) 7 SCC 515, Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering several judgments on the issue in a matter relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act, [2025:RJ-JP:16493] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1258/2024] 1988, has held that the trial court while dealing with an application for discharge at the stage of framing of charge must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction.

9. A similar opinion was also expressed in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap : (2021) 11 SCC 191 and relied upon in case of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf (2023 INSC 555), it was held that at the stage of framing of charge and/or considering discharge application, a mini trial is not permissible. A defence on merits is not to be considered at the stage of framing of charge and / or at the stage of discharge of application.

10. After following the principle of law required to be taken care of at the stage of framing of charge it is quite evident from the material forwarded by police that the candidate who was intercepted by Centre Superintendent has forwarded pictures to the present petitioner by using whatsapp application and it constitute unfair means. Though, the petitioner claimed that he was not within the jurisdiction wherein examination was conducted but it is a transfer of question paper by electronic means during time period of examination. The possibility cannot be ruled out [2025:RJ-JP:16493] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1258/2024] that information is used to solve the question paper and provide answer by distributing to many more candidates. This is a case of interference in public examination by unfair means.

11. In view of aforesaid, the Trial Court has not committed any error while framing the charge on the material forwarded by police, therefore, the revision petition sans merits and same is liable to be dismissed.

12. Accordingly, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1258/2024 preferred by petitioner-accused Kishan Chand is hereby dismissed with pending application(s), if any. MONU /186 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J