Law :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination
(Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary :-
The investigation revealed that
clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the
exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually
facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation,
filed the charge-sheet.
The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded
against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination
(Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for
Section 5 of the Act reads as under:
Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with
No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a
public examination shall, except where he is permitted by
virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or
cause to be divulged or make known to any other person
any information o…
the power of the revenue Court in deciding the disputed questions
The application before the Mandal Revenue Officer
was filed under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land
and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, the Act of 1971).
Thereupon in accordance with the provision contained in the A.P.
Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, the Mandal
Revenue Officer conducted enquiry and after giving due
opportunity to the objectors and on detailed consideration of the
revenue records, passed orders on 15.03.1991.
The objection as
to maintainability of such application and the competency of the
Mandal Revenue Officer to decide the disputed questions of fact
with reference to the succession was considered and specifically
rejected by the Mandal Revenue Officer.
In support of his
decision, the Mandal Revenue Officer placed reliance on the
provision contained in Rule 9(1)(a)(i) read with Rule 9(1)(c)(i) of
the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rule…
A close perusal of Section 28 would show that though as per this Section the proceedings under Sec.12, 18 to 23 and offences under Sec. 31 are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, that is not an inscrutable rule inasmuch as Sec.28(1) is having a saving clause and also subject to sub- section(2). When we analyse the limitations of Section 28(1) with reference to the civil nature of the remedies provided under Sec.18 to 22 and saving provisions under Sec.13 and 23, we can understand that for conducting enquiry, the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases. It is because, Sec.13 lays down that the Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12 to the Protection Officer for serving on the respondent. So for securing the appearance of respondent, at the first instance, the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant. Even if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file the…