PU leak suspects question invoking of stringent law, want HC to quash FIR

PU leak suspects question invoking of stringent law, want HC to quash FIR

PU leak suspects question invoking of stringent law, want HC to quash FIR

Two men allegedly involved in the II PUC Chemistry paper leak have approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR filed against them.

PWD engineer K S Ranganath and another suspect, S Narayan, have argued that they cannot be booked under the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000, as they were not involved in any “organised” crime and that invoking of the stringent law against them was “illegal.

The petitioners contended that Section 3 of the Act stipulates punishment for organised crime and Section 2(e) defines organised crime as “to include act of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion or other unlawful means.”

By applying the principles of ejusdem generis (of the same kind), the term “other unlawful means” should be construed to carry the same meaning as of preceding words, they stated.

According to them, in their case, no materials were placed on record to demonstrate that there was an act of violence or any other act falling within the purview of Section 2(e) of the Act. In the absence of the same, invoking of Section 3 is “not only unjust and illegal but also capricious”.

They also argued that Section 2(f) of the Act defines “organised crime syndicate” as a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or collectively as a syndicate or gang, indulge in activities of organised crime”.

In order to invoke the Act, it should be shown by the prosecution that the crime should be organised in nature as a “continued unlawful activity run like a syndicate”, they maintained.  
Even a bare perusal of the records indicates that there is “absolutely nothing” against the petitioner and many other accused who have been falsely roped into the instant crime. There should also be a “history of similar offences” by the syndicate which is also not forthcoming in the prosecution, the petition stated.

The petitioners were also booked for offences punishable under Sections 418, 420, 381, 201 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 115 and 23 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, which stipulates the duties of certain persons entrusted with the examination work. The Criminal Investigation Department (CID) is probing into the matter. A vacation bench of Justice Anand Byrareddy ordered that notice be issued to the state government and adjourned the hearing until May 17, 2016.
DH News Service