AMIT KUMAR JOSHI AND ORS vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010107242026
2026:UHC:9505
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application No. 1372 of 2026
15 October, 2026
Aslam Ali And Others
--Applicants
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
With
Criminal Misc Application No. 773 of 2026
Amit Kumar Joshi And Others
--Applicants
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Abhishek Sati, Advocate for the Applicants in C528 No. 1372 of
2026.
Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, Advocate for the applicants in C528 No.
773 of 2026.
Mr. Rakesh Joshi and Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, A.G.S.s for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Since, common question of law and facts are
involved in both these Criminal Misc. Applications, hence
they are being taken up together and are being decided
by this common judgment.
2. Both these Criminal Misc. Application have been
1
UKHC010107242026
2026:UHC:9505
filed by the applicants for quashing and setting-aside the
summoning order dated 04.02.2019, charge sheet as well
as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 152 of
2019, Divya Juyal and Others Vs. State, under Sections
3, 9 and 10 of Uttar Pradesh Public Examination
(Prevention of Unfair means) Act, 1994, pending in the
Court of Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun.
3. Facts necessary, to appreciate the controversy,
briefly stated, as follows:-
As per the contention of the FIR, a mass copying was
being done in the examination centre. After
investigation, chargesheet was filed against the
applicants and other co-accused under Sections 3, 9
and 10 of Uttar Pradesh Public Examination
(Prevention of Unfair means) Act, 1998 (for short
‘Act of 1998’). The applicants have challenged the
entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 152 of
2019, Divya Juyal and Others Vs. State on the
ground that Act of 1998 is not applicable in the case
of the applicants. Challenge has been made firstly
on the ground that as per Section 87 of the U.P.
Reorganization Act, 2000, the U.P. Public
Examination Act, 1998 was not adopted by the
State of Uttarakhand within two years of the
2
UKHC010107242026
2026:UHC:9505
appointed day i.e. 09.11.2000, therefore, it has no
applicability in the State of Uttarakhand after expiry
of two years. Secondly, even assuming for the sake
of argument, though not admitting, if the Act of
1998 is applicable in the State of Uttarakhand, the
Institute of the applicants is governed by the
provisions of Uttarakhand Board of Technical
Education Act, 2003 and Regulations framed
thereunder in the year 2016. It is further contended
that as per the Regulation 29 of the said
Regulations, if a student is caught using unfair
means then that copy would be sealed and a fresh
copy would be issued to him and the matter would
be sent to the Committee. Besides this, there is no
other provision regarding penal action of the erring
students or teacher.
4. Per contra , learned State Counsel would submit that
as per the letter issued by Secretary, School Education
Board dated 24.04.2019, as per Section 87 of the U.P.
Reorganization Act, the Act framed in the erstwhile State
of U.P. would be applicable in the State of Uttarakhand if
they are not amended or repealed. This submission
cannot be accepted for the simple reason that section 87
of U.P. Reorgnization Act, 2000 provides as hereunder:-
3
UKHC010107242026
2026:UHC:9505
87. Power to adapt laws .- For the purpose of facilitating the
application in relation to the State of Uttar Pradesh or
Uttaranchal of any law made before the appointed day, the
appropriate Government may, before the expiration of two
years from that day, by order, make such adaptations and
modifications of the law, whether by way of repeal or
amendment, as may be necessary or expedient, and
thereupon every such law shall have effect subject to the
adaptations and modifications so made until altered,
repealed or amended by a competent Legislature or other
competent authority.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
6. It is apparently clear that any law, which was made
before the appointed day, would be applicable in State of
Uttarakhand for two years subject to the condition of
adaptation and modification.
7. After hearing the parties and perusing the record,
this Court finds that there is no order of adaptation of
the Act of 1998 by the State of Uttarakhand within two
years from the appointed day. Therefore, as per Section
87 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000, Act of 1998
would not be applicable in State of Uttarakhand after
expiry of period of two years from the appointed day.
Furthermore, since the Institute in which applicants were
working, is governed by the provisions of Uttarakhand
Board of Technical Education Act, 2003 and regulations
framed thereunder, therefore, the FIR and the
chargesheet filed under Sections 3, 9 and 10 of the Act of
4
UKHC010107242026
2026:UHC:9505
1998, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Vikas
Nagar, Dehradun are not applicable in the case of the
applicants.
8. In such circumstances, allowing the criminal
proceedings to continue against the applicants would be
an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court is of
the considered view that it is a fit case to exercise its
inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS to
secure the ends of justice.
9. Accordingly, both the present criminal
miscellaneous applications are allowed and the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 152 of 2019, Divya
Juyal and Others Vs. State, under Section 3, 9 and 10 of
the Act of 1998, pending in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun is hereby quashed,
qua the applicants in both these Criminal Misc.
Applications.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
Ujjwal
5