Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4875 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Madhuri Kumari Daughter If Brij Deo Choudhary Resident Of Mohalla- Kurji, Police Station-Digha And District-Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Controller Of Examination, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board, I.A.S. Association Building, Near Airport, P.S.-Airport, District-Patna 2. The Secretary, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board, I.A.S. Association Building, Near Airport, P.S.-Airport, District- Patna 3. Officer On Special Duty, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board, I.A.S. Association Building, Near Airport, P.S.- Airport, District-Patna 4. Information Officer, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board, I.A.S. Association Building, Near Airport, P.S.- Airport, District-Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar No-2 For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikas Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER 3 17-04-2012 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as „the Board). The petitioner seeks the relief for grant of admission in Para Medical Dental Course (hereinafter referred as „Dental Course‟) pursuant to her candidature at the examination conducted by the Board in the year 2011. It is submitted that after she competed in the written examination held on 4.6.2011 the petitioner was asked to appear for counseling on 10.11.2011. At the time of counseling an objection was raised by the three Professors constituting the Counseling Committee that the photograph of the candidate who appeared at the examination was not tallying with her Patna High Court CWJC No.4875 of 2012 (3) dt.17-04-2012 2 appearance before them. The petitioner was asked to write a passage. On comparison of her handwriting at the examination and the same passage during counseling it was opined on a joint consideration of the handwriting and photograph that it was a case of impersonation by the candidate recommending lodging of an FIR. Hawai Adda PS Case No. 200 of 2011 was lodged by one Umeshwar Prasad under [STATUTE] against the petitioner. Admission become a non issue. The petitioner was taken into custody on the date of counseling i.e. 10.11.2011and was released on 25.11.2011. She remained in custody for approximately two weeks. The petitioner denies that any dummy candidate appeared on her behalf. It is asserted that the photographs taken at the time of written examination and the counseling sufficiently disclose that they belong to the same person. There is no difference in the handwriting to warrant any such opinion as arrived at by the respondents. Counsel for the Board submitted that the Counseling Committee followed a standard procedure by comparison of the handwriting at the time of examination with the sample of the same passage obtained at the time of counseling. The Committee was satisfied that the handwritings related to two different persons. It was therefore observed that her candidature required further verification. She was given a second opportunity to provide the specimen handwriting. Another committee of three senior teachers distinct from the three member Counseling Committee also opined that the handwritings did not match and that the video clip of the candidate taken during examination did not match with the face of the candidate appearing for counseling. The authorities of the Board then directed institution of the FIR and the petitioner was handed over to the Police. The Board has acted fairly and reasonably on the two issues that the handwriting did not tally and that the photographs of the candidate also did not match. The action of the Patna High Court CWJC No.4875 of 2012 (3) dt.17-04-2012 3 Board was not arbitrary devoid of reason. The actions were based upon satisfaction of a disputed identity that both were not the same person. The writ Court cannot examine this disputed question of fact if the two were the same person or different. It is next submitted that whether the two handwritings match or they do not match is also a disputed question of fact best left to the expert. Reliance is placed on an order in CWJC No. 9747 of 2011. Declining to interfere with the opinion of the Forensic Science Laboratory in context of the difference in handwriting of the candidate at the two stages the Court opined that it was not safe for it to enter into the thicket of self examination of handwriting to arrive at any conclusion specially when there was a Forensic Science Laboratory Report available. Reliance is also placed on another order in CWJC No. 11722 of 2008 when the Court declined to interfere with the decision of the Board with regard to the doubt over candidature when it was also noticed that the Board contended that videography of the candidate was also examined concluding in its opinion that they were different persons. It was noticed that an FIR had similarly been lodged holding that the issues go beyond the purview of the writ Court. Summing up the argument learned Counsel for the Board urged that the entire controversy with regard to handwriting, videography involved complicated questions of fact requiring evidence. If the Court so considers proper it may send the video clippings of the candidate taken at the stage of examination and during counseling to any Forensic Science Laboratory deemed fit by the Court. The Board stands by its decision that the two photographs are not of the same candidate. In the present case there is no Forensic Science Laboratory Report on comparison of the two handwritings of the petitioner. The issues Patna High Court CWJC No.4875 of 2012 (3) dt.17-04-2012 4 of la

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.