AMAR SARAN, R.D.KHARE, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the peti ­tioner and learned Additional Government Advocate.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing of an FIR at case crime No. 199 of 2009, under section 4 -b read with 7/10 of Uttar Pradesh Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998, police station Geanpur, lodged by the Dis ­trict Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh on 21.3.2009. Briefly, the allegations in the FIR were that there was information that the examination mafias had leaked out the English I High School paper and were get ­ting the paper solved by persons connected with different colleges after taking money. Thereupon, the team headed by the District Inspector of Schools and the police force conducted raids at various places in Dis ­trict Azamgarh on 21.3.2009. At about 4.00 A.M. when the team reached the gate of Sunarika Balika Inter College of which the petitioner was the Manager, the petitioner who was present there at that time and was directing the public to make markings on the paper, fled from the spot. The motor ­cycles of two persons, who had also fled from the scene were found lying there. On checking the motorcycles were found to contain the English I paper and some Eng ­lish High School guide books etc. The pa ­per contained references to the solutions in the guide books. According to the peon Jai Patap who was present there the petitioner was dictating the answers to the persons who had gathered.
(3.) IT was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the exami ­nation was to be conducted, at 7.30 AM, hence there was no question of persons gathering at 4.00 AM for being informed about the answers to the questions paper. We fail to appreciate this argument, as there was nothing improbable in the peti ­tioner's calling the concerned persons at 4.00 AM for furnishing them with the an ­swers to the paper for price if the petitioner wanted to assist in the use of unfair means by the examinees. Also nothing would turn on the argu ­ment of the learned Counsel for the peti ­tioner that there was no averment in the report of the Centre Superintendent and Centre Magistrate of using unfair means between 2.3.2009 and 26.3.2009. That could not give rise to an inference that no such incident as alleged could have taken place in the morning.;