5.6. In the final result, the petitioner secured 160.50 marks in the DJS Preliminary Examination, 2023 and the marks obtained by the last selected candidate form the unreserved category were 160.75. Therefore, the petitioner fell short of 0.25 marks in clearing the cut off. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner has challenged the revised answer to Question No.89, seeking (i) additional marks in respect of the aforesaid question on the basis that the option exercised by the petitioner was the correct one or, in the alternative; (ii) deletion of the aforesaid question. 7. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that ‘ Option (2) ’, i.e., “ Section 406 ” was the correct answer in respect of Question No.89. It is submitted that in the aforesaid question use of the phrase ‘ without intending to deceive ’ rules out the possibility of intention to deceive, which is not a necessary ingredient for the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Radha Rani v. Parmod Kumar Oberoi , 1995 Supp (4) SCC 491. Therefore, “ Section 406 ”, set out as ‘ Option 2 ’ would be the correct answer, as was provided in the original answer key dated 20th December, 2023.
