C. Thayaparan vs Inspector of Police, Special Police Establishment, CBI-ACB

R.S. Ramanathan, J.—The Petitioner in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 7618 of 2011 is the Second Accused and the Petitioner in Crl. O.P. (MD)

No. 12880 of 2011 is the First Accused in C.C. No. 6 of 2011 on the file of the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Madurai. These Criminal Original

Petitions were filed to quash the charge-sheet filed against them. The brief facts of the case is as follows:

The Second Accused, the Petitioner in Crl. O.P (MD) No. 7618 of 2011 is the Managing Trustee of the ACP Educational Trust and Chairman of

Sun College of Engineering and Technology"" at Sun Nagar, Erachakulam Post, Kanyakumari District. The college was started in the year 1999

and the Second Accused sent an Application for approval of the college to AICTE, which is the Competent Authority seeking for approval and

the Expert Committee inspected the college and all available infrastructure and submitted a report. The entire deficiencies pointed by the Expert

Committee were not informed to the college by the First Accused, who is the Petitioner in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 12880 of 2011 and some

deficiencies were complied with and rectified and thereafter, Southern Regional Office forwarded a report to AICTE and by proceedings in F.No.

732-52-095/NDEG/ET/99, dated 4.11.1999, the approval for establishment of Sun Engineering and Technology by ACP Educational Trust was

issued by the First Accused, who is the Petitioner in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 12880 of 2010. Initially, the Petitioner/ A2 was permitted to admit 60

students in three branches, namely Electronics & Communication, Information Technology and Computer Science. In the year 2000, an Expert

Committee visited the college to decide the extension of approval and during the course of inspection, the Committee found certain irregularities

and deficiencies and the Second Accused, the Petitioner in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 7618 of 2011 was directed to rectify the irregularities. Thereafter,

AICTE granted approval of extension on 15.9.2000 for the academic year 2000-2001 and the Institution was permitted to admit 40 students in

each branches. Thereafter, approval was granted every year, after due inspection by the Expert Committee. On 31.8.2009, the Respondent

registered a case in Crime No. RC45/A/2009/CBI/ACB/Chennai for offences u/s 120-B r/w 420, I.P.C. and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC

Act, 1988 against five persons and in the FIR, the Petitioner in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 7618 of 2011 was ranked as 4th Accused and the Petitioner

in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 12880 of 2011 was ranked as Second Accused. After investigation, the Respondent filed Charge-Sheet No. 9 of 2011

against A1 & A2 the Petitioners herein and hence, these Criminal Original Petitions were filed to quash the charge-sheet filed against the

Petitioners.

Submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Crl O.P. (MD) No. 7618 of 2011:

Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Second Accused submitted that the registration of FIR is against the

procedures contemplated under the CBI Manual and the filing of the charge-sheet is also actuated by malice and therefore material irregularities

and the Respondent without taking into consideration the grant of approval by AICTE to the Trust for starting the college and permitted them to

admit students and without considering the orders passed in W.P. No. 19792 of 2003 and the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil)

No. 2519 of 2004 erred in filing the charge-sheet against the Petitioner.

The learned Senior Counsel elaborated his submission by stating that the grant of approval for starting a new College or for grant of extension of

approval was governed by 1987 Act (Act No. 52/1987) and the Council has framed Regulations for grant of approval and that is known as ''All

India Council for Technical Education (Grant of approval for starting new Technical Institutions, Introduction of courses or programmes and

approval of intake capacity of seats for the courses or programmes) Regulation, 1994. As per the Regulation, on receipt of the Application from

the Trust for starting a College, the same will be processed by the Scrutinizing Committee followed by inspection by the Expert Committee and the

Expert Committee report will be presented before the Regional Committee and thereafter, placed before AICTE.

The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that u/s 3 of the Act, All India Council for Technical Education is the Competent Authority to

grant approval and the Council consist of 51 members and it is the collective decision of the Council to grant approval or to reject the same.

The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the irregularities or deficiencies pointed out by the Expert Committee were suitably complied

with and on being satisfied with the Compliance Report, approval was granted and therefore, the Second Accused, namely the Petitioner in Crl.

O.P. (MD) No. 7618 of 2011 cannot be charged for offence u/s 420, I.P.C. or under the provision of PC Act, as he is only a Managing Trustee

of the Trust and complied with the directions given by the Expert Committee.

The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that Act 1987 is a self-contained Act and the ground of approval or cancellation is also governed

by the Regulations framed under the Act and even assuming that there are some irregularities, that will not amount to Criminal offence for initialing

the prosecution.

The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that one Mr. R. Ashok Chandra filed W.P. No. 19792 of 2003 seeking direction of this Court to

pass final orders on the Show Cause Notice, dated 24.12.2012 issued by All India Council for Technical Education (Technical Education) to the

College and that Writ Petition was dismissed and that was confirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and therefore, the Respondent ought to have

taken into consideration the Order passed in that Writ Petition as well as passed in SLP by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, before filing the charge-

sheet and ought not to have filed the charge-sheet against the Second Accused.

The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the filing of FIR is also manifestly illegal due to long delay and latches and as per the

provisions of AICTE Act, 1987 and Regulations framed thereunder, which are self-contained, there is no legal bar against the institution or

continuance of the Criminal proceedings in respect of grant of approval by the Authorities.

Submission of the learned Counsel Mr. M. Prabakaran appearing on behalf of the Petitioner in Crl. O.P (MD) No. 12880 of 2011:

Mr. M. Prabakaran, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner almost reiterated the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel,

Mr. M. Ajmal Khan and submitted that the registration of FIR itself is illegal, as it is against the provision of CBI Manual and further submitted that

the person, who registered FIR was not competent to register FIR without getting approval from the higher authorities, and having registered the

F.I.R. he cannot conduct further investigation and admittedly, further investigation was conducted by him and on that ground, the entire process has

to be aside

The learned Counsel further submitted that the allegations in the FIR or in the charge-sheet, even taken by their face value, do not disclose any

cognizable offence and therefore, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed.

The learned Counsel further submitted that while quashing the charge-sheet u/s 482, Cr.P.C. the Court can also look into the other documents,

which are admitted and are of sterling quality and which would prove that the materials collected during the investigation were contrary to the facts

and therefore, the judicial orders passed latter in respect of the same subject matter namely the orders passed in the Writ Petition and SLP as

stated supra, the respondent ought not to have proceeded further with the investigation and ought not to have filed the charge-sheet.

Submissions of the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent:

Mr. S. Rozario Sundar Raj, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases submitted that there is no need to get prior approval for

registering the case and the CBI Manual is only a guideline to the CBI Officers for an effective investigation and it has no statutory force and based

on the sources of information, the procedures contemplated under Chapter 8 of the CBI Manual was followed and having realized that a

cognizable offence has been committed by the Petitioners and three others, FIR was registered against them and latter, during investigation, it was

found that the offences were made out only against the Petitioners herein and therefore, charge-sheet was filed against two persons and having

regard to the statements given by the witnesses, it cannot be stated that no prima facie case has been made out against the Petitioners.

The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that the provisions contained in AICTE Act and Regulation framed thereunder are

only for the Authorities constituted under the Act to follow those procedures as contemplated under those Act and Regularization and while

investigating a crime, the CBI is not bound to follow that procedure and considering the Expert Committee Report, which pointed out various

major irregularities and the First Accused, namely the Petitioner in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 12880 of 2011 placed only some minor irregularities to the

Second Accused, namely Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 7618 of 2011 for compliance and thereafter, placed the said Compliance Report before the body,

which is empowered to grant approval to make it appear that all the deficiencies and short comings pointed out by the Expert Committee were

complied with by the Second Accused and approval was granted on the basis of the recommendation of the 1st accused and the First Accused

had suppressed the deficiencies and short comings pointed out by the Expert Committee to the body which granted approval and therefore, the

Accused conspired with each other and committed offences and therefore, the charges cannot be quashed.

The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that the Writ Petition filed by Mr. R. Ashok Chandra has nothing to do with the

Criminal proceedings initiated by the CBI and Mr. R. Ashok Chandra filed the Writ Petition for taking action on the show cause notice issued by

AICTE and the Hon''ble Supreme Court did not go into the Criminal offence and the SLP was dismissed on the ground that the Director of

Technical Education found that there were no irregularities and the same was accepted by R. Ashok Chandra and therefore, the proceedings

initiated by the AICTE cannot be taken into consideration for quashing the charge-sheet.

The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that while quashing the charge-sheet, the Court should not look into the other

materials furnished by the defence and the Court has to consider the materials available before the Court produced by the prosecution, to find out

whether any case has been made out on the basis of the statements obtained during investigation and a reading of the statements given by the

witnesses would make it clear that due to the conspiracy between A1 & A2, the entire Report of the Expert Committee was not placed and minor

deficiencies were complied with and that report was forwarded to the statutory body for taking final decision and the statutory body was misled by

the above Report submitted by the First Accused and approval was granted on that basis and therefore, the charge-sheet cannot be quashed, as it

discloses a cognizable offence against the Petitioners.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 12880 of 2011 relied upon the following Judgments in support of his contention:

Vineet Narain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another,

Shashikant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Others,

P. Sundaraparipooranan and Green Signal Bio Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI),

R. Subramanium and another v. Union Government of India by Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB/Chennai, CDJ 2012 MHC

2155;

Vasavan Vs. State of Kerala,

Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijaya Satardekar and Others,

State of U.P. Vs. R.K. Srivastava and Another,

Mahesh Joshi Vs. State,

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 7618 of 2011 relied upon the following Judgments in support

his contention:

State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others,

2 V.P. Shrivastava Vs. Indian Explosives Ltd. and Others,

3 Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Rajvir Industries Ltd. and Others,

4 Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration and Another,

State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others,

Bharat Ranjan Misra Vs. Shyam Sundar Agrawal,

The State of Rajasthan and Another Vs. Vasudev Sharma,

Unreported judgment made in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 8741 and 9385 of 2011, etc. [Bhagchand Uttamchand & others v. The Inspector of Police,

Kodaikanal Police Station & others].

The following decisions were placed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent in support of his contention.

S. Ramu Vs. Govt. of A.P.,

Jitu Patnaik Vs. Sanatan Mohakud and Others,

State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi,

B. Jagdish and Another Vs. State of A.P. and Another,

Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijaya Satardekar and Others,

State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu Vs. V. Jayapaul,

S. Jeevanantham Vs. The State through Inspector of Police, TN,

U.P. Pollution Control Board Vs. Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Modi and Another,

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. A. Ravishankar Prasad and Others,

C.B.I. Vs. V.K. Bhutiani

Shashikant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Others,

Vineet Narain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another,

K. Selvaraj and D.R. Krishnamurthy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu,

V.P. Shrivastava Vs. Indian Explosives Ltd. and Others,

Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley Etc.,

Unreported judgment rendered in Crl. O.P (MD) No. 8741 & 9385 of 2011 [Bhagchand Uttamchand and others v. The Inspector of Police,

Kodaikanal Police Station and others].

On the basis of the arguments submitted by the learned Senior Counsel and the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the following points are to

be considered for arriving at a conclusion in these Petitions:

Whether FIR can be filed in the absence of the preliminary enquiry and without getting approval from the higher Authority.

While quashing the charge-sheet, whether the Court can look into the other materials provided by the defence.

Whether the person, who registered FIR, can conduct investigation and file the charge-sheet and whether the charges can be quashed on that

ground.

What is the scope of Section 482, Cr.P.C.

Whether the statement obtained from the witnesses disclose any cognizable offence against the Petitioners ?

Point No. 1:

It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel and the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Chapter 8 of the CBI Manual was not

followed and no approval was obtained for registration of FIR and no preliminary enquiry was conducted and therefore, the registration of FIR is

bad and it is also hit by delay and latches as admittedly, the offences alleged to have been committed in the year 1997 and the FIR was filed in the

year 2009.

On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that CBI Manual is only for internal procedure for CBI officials and the

provisions of Cr.P.C. will have precedent over the CBI Manual and therefore, there is nothing wrong in registering the FIR when cognizable

offence, has been committed, therefore, the registration of FIR is not illegal.

In State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Shri Ram Singh, after relying upon the judgment reported in H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh Vs.

The State of Delhi, , it has been held as follows:

A defect or illegality in investigation, however serious, has no direct bearing on the competence or the procedure relating to cognizance or trial. No

doubt a Police Report which results from an investigation is provided in Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the material on which

cognizance is taken. But it cannot be maintained that a valid and legal police report is the foundation of the jurisdiction of the Court to take

cognizance. Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is one out of a group of sections under the heading ""Conditions requisite for initiation

of proceedings"". The language of this Section is in marked contrast with that of the other sections of the group under the same heading i.e. Sections

193 & 195 to 199.

These latter Sections regulate the competence of the Court and bar its jurisdiction in certain cases excepting in compliance therewith. But Section

190 does not. While no doubt, in one sense, Clauses (a), (b) & (c) of Section 190(1) are conditions requisite for taking of cognizance, it is not

possible to say that cognizance on an invalid police report is prohibited and is therefore a nullity. Such an invalid report may still fall either under

Clause (a) or (b) of Section 190(1) (whether it is the one or the other we need not pause to consider), and in any case cognizance so taken is only

in the nature of error in a proceeding antecedent to the trial. To such a situation Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is in the

following terms is attracted: (Section 465 of New Code)

Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or

altered on Appeal or Revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the Complaint, summons, warrant, charge, proclamation, order,

judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any enquiry or other proceedings under this Code, unless such error, omission or

irregularity, has in fact occasioned a failure of justice.

If, therefore, cognizance is in fact taken, on a Police Report vitiated by the breach of a mandatory provision relating to investigation, there can be

no doubt that the result of the trial which follows it cannot be set aside unless the illegality in the investigation can be shown to have brought about a

miscarriage of justice. [italic supplied] That an illegality committed in the course of investigation does not affect the competence and the jurisdiction

of the Court for trial is well settled as appears from the cases in AIR 1944 73 (Privy Council) ; and Lumbhardar Zutshi v. King, 1950 (51) Cri. LJ

It further held (Para 10 of AIR, Cri Lj):

In our opinion, therefore, when such a breach is brought to the notice of the Court at an early stage of the trial the Court will have to consider the

nature and extent of the violation and pass appropriate orders for such investigation as may be called for, wholly or partly, and by such officer as it

considers appropriate with reference to the requirements of Section 5-A of the Act. It is in the light of the above considerations that the validity or

otherwise of the objection as to the violation of Section 5(4) of the Act has to be decided and the course to be adopted in these proceedings,

determined.

After referring to the following observation made in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others,

this Court had found on facts that the SP had passed the order mechanically and in a very casual manner regardless of the settled principles of law.

The provisions of Section 17 of the Act had not been complied with. As earlier noticed the SP while authorizing the SHO to investigate had made

only endorsement to the effect ""please register the case and investigate."" The SP was shown to be not aware either of allegations or the nature of

the offences and the pressure of workload requiring investigation by an Inspector. There is no denial of the fact that in cases against the

respondents in these Appeals, even in the absence of the authority of the SP the Investigating Officer was in law authorized to investigate the

offence falling u/s 13 of the Act with the exception of one as is described under sub-section (1)(e) of the Act. After registration of the FIR the

Superintendent of Police in the instant Appeals is shown to be aware and conscious of the allegations made against the respondents, the FIR

registered against them and pending investigations. The order passed by the SP in case of Ram Singh on 12.12.1994 with respect to a Crime

Registered in 1992 was to the effect:

In exercise of powers conferred by the provisions on me, u/s 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, I.P.K. Runwal, Superintendent of

Police, Special Police Establishment, Division-1, Lokayukt Karyalaya, Gwalior Division, Gwalior (M.P) authorized Shri D.S. Rana Insp. (SPE)

Lak. Gwl (M.P) to investigate Crime No. 103/92 under Sections 13(1)(e), 23(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Shri Ram

Singh-D.O. Excise Baitul (MP).

and the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, on which basis crime is registered, distinguishing the facts of Bhajanlal''s case, it was held

that the Superintendent of Police appears to have applied his mind and passed the order authorizing the investigation by an Inspector under the

peculiar circumstances of the case. The reasons for entrustment of investigation were obvious. The High Court should not have liberally construed

the provisions of the Act in favour of the Accused resulting in closure of the trial of the serious charges made against the Respondents in relation to

commission of offences punishable under an Act legislated to curb the illegal and corrupt practices of the Public Officers. Holding so, the Supreme

Court set aside the order of the High Court quashing the investigation and consequent proceedings, with a direction to the Lower Court to proceed

with the trial in accordance with the previsions of law.

In Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha and Another Vs. B. Srinivas, it has been held as follows:

The question relates to the alleged deficiency in authorization made by the Superintendent of Police authorizing the Inspector to investigate the

case, wherein it was held the High Court failed to follow the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Shri Ram Singh, where the

Supreme Court explained the view expressed in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, and supported the order passed by

the Superintendent of Police is more elaborate. Even otherwise the effect of Section 19(3) of the Act relating to prejudice has been completely lost

sight of by the High Court. Holding so set aside the order passed by the High Court and allowed the Appeal.

Therefore, the first submission of the learned Senior Counsel and the Counsel for the Petitioner that the registration of FIR without prior sanction

and approval is not valid and therefore, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed and CBI Manual was not followed cannot accepted.

The submission of the learned Senior Counsel and the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that CBI Manual was not strictly followed

and without conducting any preliminary enquiry and without obtaining consent from the superior officer, FIR was lodged by the Inspector of Police

and FIR was also filed belatedly and therefore, FIR was liable to be quashed and consequently, the charge sheet is also liable to be quashed

cannot be accepted.

These Petitions were filed to quash the charge-sheet and after the investigation, the Respondent found that prima facie materials are available to

file the charge-sheet and latter, laid the charge-sheet and therefore, at this stage, FIR cannot be quashed.

Further, FIR cannot be quashed on the ground of delay and latches, as there is no limitation for taking cognizance of the offence framed against

the Petitioners. Further, while dealing with the powers of CBI to file FIR without following the CBI Manual, I have discussed in detail the Judgment

of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Shri Ram Singh, and others Judgments stated therein.

In Vineet Narain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, it has been held as follows:

Once the jurisdiction is conferred on the CBI to investigate an offence by virtue of Notification u/s 3 of the Act, the powers of investigation are

governed by the statutory provisions and they cannot be estopped or curtailed by any executive instruction issued u/s 4(1) thereof. This result

follows from the fact that conferment of jurisdiction is u/s 3 of the Act and exercise of powers of investigation is by virtue of the statutory provisions

governing investigation of offences. It is settled that statutory jurisdiction cannot be subject to executive control.

There is no similarity between a mere executive order requiring prior permission or sanction for investigation of the offence and the sanction

needed under the statute for prosecution. The requirement of sanction for prosecution being provided in the very statute which enacts the offence,

the sanction for prosecution is a prerequisite for the court to take cognizance of the offence. In the absence of any statutory requirement of prior

permission or sanction for investigation, it cannot be imposed as a condition precedent for initiation of the investigation once jurisdiction is

conferred on the CBI to investigate the offence by virtue of the Notification u/s 3 of the Act. The word ''superintendence'' in Section 4(1) of the

Act in the context must be construed in a manner consistent with the other provisions of the Act and the general statutory powers of investigation

which govern investigation even by the CBI. The necessity of previous sanction for prosecution is provided in Section 6 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1947 (Section 19 of the 1988 Act) without which no Court can take cognizance of an offence punishable u/s 5 of that Act. There

is no such previous sanction for investigation provided for either in the Prevention of Corruption Act or the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act

or in any other statutory provision. The above is the only manner in which Section 4(1) of the Act can be harmonized with Section 3 and the other

statutory provisions.

In Shashikant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Others, it has been held as follows:

The said Act was enacted to make provision for the constitution of a Special Police Force in Delhi for the investigation of certain offences in the

Union Territories for the superintendence and administration of the said force and for extension to other of the powers and jurisdiction of members

of the said force in regard to the investigation of the said offence. Section 2 empowers the Central Government to constitute a special force.

Indisputably, the First Respondent has been constituted in terms thereof. Sub-section (2) of Section 2 provides that subject to any orders which

the Central Government may make in this behalf, members of the said Police establishment shall have throughout any Union Territory in relation to

the investigation of such offences and arrest of persons concerned in such offences, all the powers, duties, privileges, and liabilities which Police

Officers of that Union Territory have in connection with the investigation of offences committed therein. The said Act indisputably applies in regard

to charges of corruption made against the Employees of the Union of India. It is also not disputed that the CBI Manual was made by the Central

Government providing for detailed procedure as regards the mode and manner in which Complaints against public servants are to be dealt with.

Further, in the same Judgment, relying upon the Judgment reported in Vineet Narain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, the

Hon''ble Supreme Court held as follows:

58.1.12. The CBI Manual based on statutory provisions of the Cr.P.C. provides essential guidelines for the CBI''s functioning. It is imperative that

the CBI adheres scrupulously to the provisions in the Manual in relation to its investigation functions, like raids, seizure and arrests. Any deviation

from the established procedure should be viewed seriously and severed disciplinary action taken against the officials concerned.

In the judgment reported in K. Selvaraj and D.R. Krishnamurthy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, this Court held that Vigilance manual and

Guidelines issued by the authorities is only directory and not mandatory. Therefore, I hold that even assuming that CBI Manual was not strictly

followed in registration of FIR and the initiation of charge sheet that cannot be a ground to quash the charge-sheet, based on the legal evidence.

Further, it is seen from the FIR that FIR was lodged on the basis of the sources of information and having regard to the judgment reported in

State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Shri Ram Singh, and other judgments stated thereon, it cannot be stated that the investigation is

improper and liable to be quashed.

Further, in the judgment reported in Vineet Narain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, , it has been held that once the

jurisdiction is conferred on the CBI to investigate an offence by virtue of notification u/s 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, the

powers of investigation are governed by the statutory provisions and they cannot be estopped or curtailed by any executive instruction issued u/s

4(1) thereof. It is further held that there is no such previous sanction for investigation provided for either in the Prevention of Corruption Act or the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act or in any other statutory provision and in the absence of any statutory requirement for prior permission or

sanction for investigation, it cannot be imposed as a condition precedent for initiation of the investigation, once jurisdiction is conferred on the CBI

to investigate the offence by virtue of the Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act. Therefore, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel and the Counsel

appearing for the Petitioners cannot be accepted in respect of the first point.

Point No. 2:

The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases relied upon by the Judgment reported in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi,

rendered by the Three-Judges of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and submitted that while quashing the charge-sheet, the Court has to look only into

the materials available and filed along with the charge-sheet and the materials furnished by the defence cannot be looked into.

The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court rendered in Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi

Administration and Another, was overruled in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, He also submitted that the same view was expressed in

B. Jagdish and B. Jagdish and Another Vs. State of A.P. and Another, .

On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel and the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the decision reported in

State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, has been clarified in the judgment reported Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijaya Satardekar and Others, ; and

Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley Etc., and the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that it cannot be said as an absolute proposition that under

no circumstances can the Court look into the material produced by the defence at the time of framing of the charges, though this should be done in

very rare case, namely where the defence produces some material which convincingly demonstrates that the whole prosecution case is totally

absurd or totally concocted. Further, in any proceedings u/s 482, Cr.P.C. the Court is free to consider the materials that may be produced on

behalf of the Accused to arrive at a decision, whether charges framed could be maintained.

According to me, a combined reading of the judgment reported State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijaya

Satardekar and Others, and Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley Etc., makes it clear that in any proceedings u/s 482, Cr.P.C. the Court is

free to consider the material, that may be produced on behalf of the Accused to arrive at a conclusion, whether charge framed could be maintained

and the Hon''ble Judges made a distinction that at that time of framing of charges, the Court cannot take into consideration the defence of the

Accused or the materials produced by the Accused and in the proceeding initiated u/s 482, the Court is free to consider the material provided by

the Accused.

As a matter of fact, in the Judgment reported in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, ; State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, the

Hon''ble Supreme Court held that in rare cases, where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify that the materials provided by the

defence can be considered.

In the Judgment reported in Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley Etc., the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that in an appropriate case, if

on the face of the documents, which are beyond suspicion or doubt placed before tech accused to prove that the accusations against him cannot

stand, it would be travesty of justice if Accused is relegated to trial and he is asked to prove his defence before the trial.

In the Judgment reported Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijaya Satardekar and Others, it has been held as follows:

Thus in our opinion, while it is true that ordinarily defence material cannot be looked into by the Court while framing of the charge in view of State

of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, there may be some very rare and exceptional cases where some defence material when shown to the Trial

Court would convincingly demonstrate that the prosecution version is totally absurd or preposterous, and in such very rare cases the defence

material can be looked into by the Court at the time of framing of the charges or taking cognizance. On our opinion, therefore, it cannot be said as

an absolute proposition that under no circumstances can the Court look into the material produced by the defence at the time of framing of the

charges, though this should be done in very rare cases i.e., where the defence produces some material which convincingly demonstrates that the

whole prosecution case is totally absurd or totally concocted.

Therefore, I hold that when the materials supplied by the defence are admitted documents or of sterling quality the authenticity of which cannot be

questioned, those materials can be considered in a proceeding u/s 482, Cr.P.C. and the submission of the learned Senior Counsel and learned

Counsel appearing for the Petitioners is that regard can be accepted. Nevertheless, in this case whether the materials produced by the defence can

be considered for quashing the charges will be discussed in the latter part of this Judgment.

Point No. 3:

The third point submitted by the learned Senior Counsel and the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that FIR was lodged by the Inspector of

Police and the very same officer, conducted the investigation and filed the charge-sheet and therefore, the investigation and the charge-sheet are to

be quashed.

According to me, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel and the learned Counsel for the Petitioners cannot be accepted, having regard

to the Judgment reported in State, represented by State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu Vs.

V. Jayapaul, and S. Jeevanantham Vs. The State through Inspector of Police, TN, In those cases, it was held that unless prejudice or bias was

made out, the investigation or charge-sheet cannot be quashed on that ground.

In the judgment reported in State, represented by State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu

Vs. V. Jayapaul, it is held as follows:

Though there is no such statutory bar, the premise on which the High Court quashed the proceedings was that the investigation by the same officer

who ''lodged'' the FIR would prejudice the accused inasmuch as the Investigating Officer cannot be expected to act fairly and objectively. We find

no principle or binding authority to hold that the moment the Competent Police Officer, on the basis of information received, makes out an FIR

incorporating his name as the informant, he forfeits his right to investigate. If at all, such investigation could only be assailed on the ground of bias or

real likelihood of bias on the part of the Investigating Officer. The question of bias would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and

it is not proper to lay down a broad and unqualified proposition, in the manner in which it has been done by the High Court, that whenever a Police

Officer proceeds to investigate after registering the FIR on his own, the investigation would necessarily be unfair or biased. In the present case, the

police officer received certain discreet information, which according to his assessment, warranted a probe and therefore made up his mind to

investigate. The formality of preparing the FIR in which he records the factum of having received the information about the suspected commission

of the offence and then taking up the investigation after registering the crime, does not, by any semblance of reasoning, vitiate the investigation on

the ground of bias or the like factor. If the reason which weighed with the High Court could be a ground to quash the prosecution, the powers of

investigation conferred on the Police Officers would be unduly hampered for no good reason. What is expected to be done by the Police Officers

in the normal course of discharge of their official duties will then be vulnerable to attack.

In the judgment reported in S. Jeevanantham Vs. The State through Inspector of Police, TN, , the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court

reported in State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu Vs. V. Jayapaul, was relied.

Therefore, the argument of the learned Senior Counsel and the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the same Inspector of Police,

who registered the FIR cannot conduct the investigation and file the Final Report and on that ground, the charge-sheet is liable to be quashed

cannot be accepted.

Point Nos. 4 & 5:

The scope of enquiry u/s 482 has been elaborated in the following judgments:

U.P. Pollution Control Board Vs. Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Modi and Another,

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. A. Ravishankar Prasad and Others,

C.B.I. Vs. V.K. Bhutiani

V.P. Shrivastava Vs. Indian Explosives Ltd. and Others,

In U.P. Pollution Control Board Vs. Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Modi and Another, it has been held as follows:

It is true that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible Rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. While

exercising inherent powers either on Civil or Criminal jurisdiction, the Court does not function as a Court of Appeal or Revision. The inherent

jurisdiction though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution. It should be exercised to do real and substantial justice and if any

attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent abuse. When no offence is disclosed by the

Complaint, the Court may examine the question of fact. When Complaint is sought to be quashed.

When exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code, the High Court could not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in

question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it the accusation would not be sustained. To put it clear, it is the function of

the Trial Judge to do so. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of its power is based on sound principles. The inherent

power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. If the allegations set out in the Complaint do not constitute offence of which

cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers u/s 482 of the

Criminal Procedure Code. However, it is not necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the

case would end in conviction or acquittal.

In Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. A. Ravishankar Prasad and Others, , it has been held as follows:

The powers possessed by the High Court u/s 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its

exercise. The Court must be careful to ensure that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should

not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the

facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether

factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule

can be laid down with regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage.

Both English and the Indian Courts have consistently taken the view that the inherent powers can be exercised in those exceptional cases

where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the Complaint, even if are taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety do

not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Accused. When we apply the settled legal position to the facts of this case it

is not possible to conclude that the Complaint and the charge-sheet prima facie do not constitute any offence against the Respondents.

In the Judgment reported in Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held has follows:

The Criminal Courts are clothed with inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. Such power though

unrestricted and undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to

do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the Courts exist. The powers possessed by the High Court u/s 482 of the Code

are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Courts must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of

this power is based on sound principles,

In the Judgment reported in Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, SIU (X), New Delhi Vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta, it has

been held as follows:

26 for the purpose of quashing the Complaint, it is necessary to consider whether the allegations in the Complaint prima facie make out an offence

or not. It is not necessary to scrutinize the allegations for the purpose of deciding whether such allegations are likely to be upheld in the trial. Any

action by way of quashing the Complaint is an action to be taken at the threshold before evidences are led in support of the Complaint. For

quashing the Complaint by way of action at the threshold, it is, therefore, necessary to consider whether on the face of the allegations [incorporated

in a Complaint or FIR], a Criminal offence is constituted or not.

In the Judgment reported in Inder Mohan Goswami and Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, it has been held as follows:

Inherent powers u/s 482, Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is

justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the

process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the Court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent

powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute.

The Court in Goswami case also observed that: ""inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.

In R.P. Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab, the Hon''ble Supreme Court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power u/s 483

could be exercised by the High Court to quash the Criminal proceedings against the accused and they are as follows:

(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;

(ii) Where the allegations in the First Information Report or Complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the

offence alleged;

(iii) Whether the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to

prove the charge.

Similarly in Dinesh Dutt Joshi Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Another, , it has been held as follows:

6 The principle embodied in the Section is based upon the maxim: quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae

esse non potest i.e., when the law gives anything to anyone, it gives also all those things without which the thing itself would be unavailable. The

Section does not confer any new power, but only declares that the High Court possesses inherent powers for the purposes specified in the

Section. As lacunae are sometimes found in procedural law, the Section has been embodied to cover such lacunae wherever they are discovered.

The use of extraordinary powers conferred upon the High Court under this Section are however required to be reserved, as for as possible, for

extraordinary cases.

In the Judgment reported in G. Sagar Suri and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, it has been held as follows:

Jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code has to be exercised with great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction the High Court is not to examine the matter

superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a Civil nature, has been given a cloak of Criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are

not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a Criminal Court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused

it is a serious matter. This Court has laid down certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction u/s 482 of the

Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Bearing these principles in mind, we will have to see whether the charge-sheet can be quashed.

To appreciate the contention of the learned Senior Counsel and the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in the both the Petitions, we

will have to look into the charges:

Prof. B.G. Sangameshwara, now Principal of Sri Jayachamrajendra College of Engineering, Mysore was working as Advisor (Engg. &

Technology) in All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), New Delhi from June 1997 to August 2001 on deputation.

Shri C. Thayaparan, S/o. Late Chandrasekaran is the Managing Trustee of M/s. A.C.P. Educational Trust, Nagercoil and the Trust was formed

by him on 13.1.1997.

The ACP Trust had applied for starting a new Engineering College viz., ""Sun College of Engg. and Technology"" and in this regard submitted

application to AICTE and an expert committee from AICTE consisting of Dr. V. Abhai Kumar, Dr. S. Narayanan and Prof. T.R. Natesan (since

expired) inspected the site on 2.10.1999.

The Expert Committee headed by Prof. T.R. Natesan observed various specific infrastructural and other deficiencies and vide their report dated

2.10.1999, recommended not to give approval to start the proposed Sun college of Engg. and Technology. The Expert Committee had

recommended the proposal of the Trust to be out rightly rejected.

The Southern Regional Office of AICTE, Chennai forwarded the above report of the Expert Committee to Prof. B.G. Sangameshwara, Advisor

(E & T), AICTE, New Delhi on 7.10.1999 and they have also not recommended the proposal of the college.

Investigation shows that instead of rejecting the proposal as suggested by the Expert Committee, Shri B.G. Sangameshwara sent a letter to the

ACP Educational Trust on 20.10.1999 conveying few observations of the Expert Committee.

Subsequently, within two weeks, i.e. vide Letter dated 4.11.1999, Prof. B.G. Sangameshwara abused his official position and conveyed the

approval of the ACP Educational Trust for starting new Engg. College, knowing fully well that the Expert Committee have observed various

deficiencies during their inspection and recommended for out right rejection of the proposal of the Trust.

In the above letter conveying the approval, Prof B.G. Sangameshwara had falsely mentioned that the approval has been granted based on the

recommendations of the Expert Committee, knowing fully well that the Expert Committee had not recommended the proposal of the Trust and

instead recommended for outright rejection.

A.C. Thayaparan, Managing Trustee of the Trust, knowing fully well the deficiencies pointed out by the Expert Committee, instead of rectifying

the same, in pursuance of the Criminal conspiracy allowed the students to pursue their studies with insufficient infrastructure.

Subsequently, the college was again inspected by the Expert Committee consisting of Prof. P.S. Kannan, Prof. G. Sridhar Rao, Dr. S.

Narayanan and Prof. T.R. Natesan (since expired) on 23.5.2000.

During this inspection, the Expert Committee Members were not satisfied with the infrastructural facilities and commented vide their report,

dated 23.05.2000 that there was no improvement at all in this regard and recommended AICTE not to give extension of approval for the

academic year 2000-2001 and further recommended that students admitted in the previous year may be accommodated in other colleges.

However, Prof. B.G. Sangameshwara instead of accepting the recommendations of the Expert Committee and abused his official position and

in pursuance of the Criminal conspiracy with C. Thayaparan, deliberately conveyed only very few minor observations of the Expert Committee

vide his Letter dated 19.7.2000 and facilitated C. Thayaparan in getting the extension of approval to ACP Educational Trust.

To sum up, investigation shows that during the period 1999-2000, Pro. B.G. Sangameshwara (A-1) and Shri C. Thayaparan (A-2) entered

into a Criminal conspiracy at Kanyakumari, New Delhi and others places to cheat the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), New

Delhi in the issue of obtaining approval for starting new Engineering college by A.C.P. Educational Trust in the name of M/s. Sun College of

Engineering and Technology at Erachikulam, Kanyakumari District and in furtherance of the aforesaid Criminal conspiracy Shri C. Thayaparan,

Managing Trustee of ACP Educational Trust applied to AICTE for starting a new Engg. College in the name of Sun College of Engg. and

Technology, Erachikulam, Kanyakumari District, knowing fully well that the college lacks many vital infrastructural facilities, and in this regard an

expert committee from AICTE headed by Dr. Natesan inspected the temporary and permanent site of the college on 2.10.1999 and the Expert

Committee had observed and pointed out various deficiencies in infrastructure facilities and recommenced to categorically reject the proposal of

the ACP Trust to start new college, and this report of Expert Committee was forwarded by AICTE, Regional office, Chennai to Prof. B.G.

Sangameshwar (A-1), the then Advisor (E & T), AICTE, New Delhi, vide Letter dated 7.10.1999, and in furtherance of the above Criminal

conspiracy, knowing fully well that the Expert Committee had not recommended the proposal of the ACP Educational Trust since there were lot of

infrastructural deficiencies, failed to give factual position to Executive Sub-Committee to enable them to decide on the matter of according

approval, instead facilitated the ACP Educational Trust in getting approval from AICTE for starting the Sun College of Engineering and

Technology and by committing Criminal misconduct, and abused his official position and conveyed the approval vide Letter dated 4.11.1999, by

falsely mentioning in the said Letter that the approval is granted on the basis of the recommendations of the Expert Committee and in consultation

with the State Govt. and the affiliating body and on recommendations of the Regional Committee and the Expert Committee constituted by the

Council and without any supporting records to substantiate the above claims, and based on the above Approval Letter dated 4.11.1999, M/s. Sun

college of Engg. and Technology started functioning from the academic year 1999-2000. Shri Tayaparan knowing fully well that the deficiencies

pointed out by the Expert Committee are required to be attended to, and in pursuance of Criminal conspiracy and dishonestly without rectifying the

same, allowed the students to pursue their studies with insufficient infrastructure, and Prof. B.G. Sangameshwara, knowing fully well that, Expert

Committee from AICTE which was headed by Dr. Natesan again inspected the Sun college of Engg. and Technology on 23.5.2000, and this time

also the Expert Committee were not satisfied with the infrastructural facilities available in the College and also pointed out various deficiencies and

recommended AICTE not to give extension of approval to the college and instead recommended that students already admitted in first year should

be accommodated in some other college, and in pursuance of the aforesaid Criminal conspiracy, Prof. B.G. Sangameshwara abused his official

position as public servant and deliberately and knowingly suppressed many deficiencies which were specifically pointed out by the Expert

Committee, and instead conveyed only general deficiencies vide Letter dated 19.7.2000 to Sun College of Engg. and Technology and facilitated

Shri Thayaparan in getting extension of approval for the academic year 2000-2001 from AICTE and deliberately did not factually apprise the E.C.

Sub-Committees of AICTE and thereby Prof. Sangameshwara and Shri Thayaparan in pursuance of Criminal conspiracy dishonestly obtained

initial approval/subsequent extension of approval from AICTE for Sun College of Engg. for the academic year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001

respectively, and by the above said acts, Prof. Sangameshwara (A-1) had abused his official position and in conspiracy with Shri Thayaparan (A-

2) cheated AICTE.

By the aforesaid acts the accused S/Shri Prof. B.G. Sangameshwar, the then Advisor (E & T), AICTE, New Delhi and C. Thayaparan,

Managing Trustee, M/s. ACP Educational Trust have committed offences punishable u/s 120-B r/w 420 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC

Act, 1988.

Sanction order dated 24.12.2010 issued by the Competent Authority viz., Director, Department of Technical Education, Bangalore for

prosecution of Prof. B.G. Sangameshwara is enclosed along with this charge-sheet.

Investigation did not reveal any Criminal involvement of other Accused persons mentioned in Col. 2 of the charge-sheet and hence, they are

not being charge sheeted.

It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to take cognizance of the offence and dispose off the case in

accordance with law and thus, render justice.

It is seen from the charges that the Expert Committee headed by Prof. T.R. Natesan observed various specific infrastructural and other

deficiencies in the Report, dated 2.10.1999 and recommended not to give approval to start the proposed Sun of College of Engineering and

Technology. The investigation shows that B.G. Sangameshwara, the First Accused and the Petitioners in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 12880 of 2011 sent

a letter to the ACP Educational Trust conveying few irregularities of the Expert Committee and abused his official position and conveyed the

approval to the ACP Educational Trust for starting new Engg. College, knowing fully well that the Expert Committee have observed various

deficiencies during their inspection and recommended for outright rejection of the proposal of the Trust.

Further, the First Accused also falsely mentioned that the approval has been granted based on the recommendation of the Expert Committee

knowing fully well that the Expert Committee had not recommended the proposal of the Trust and instead recommended for outright rejection.

Similarly, in Paras 8, 9, 10 & 11 of the Charges, the role played by the Accused had been stated in detail and while summing up in Para 12 the

details of the offences committed by the Petitioners were stated.

As held in the Judgments referred to above, while dealing with the Application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. the inherit power should not be exercised to

stifle a legitimate prosecution and it is not necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the Trial Court to find out whether

the case would end in conviction or acquittal. For quashing the Complaint by way of action at the threshold, it is, therefore, necessary to consider

whether on the basis of the allegations in the charge, a Criminal offence is made out or not.

According to me, having regard to the allegations made in the charge-sheet and also the statement of witnesses recorded during investigation, a

prima facie case has been made out against the Petitioners and it is for the Respondent to prove the allegations during trial against the Petitioners

and at this stage, this Court cannot go into detail of the veracities of the statements given by the witnesses or to conduct detailed enquiry into

statement made by the witnesses to arrive at a conclusion that there is no basis against the Petitioners. Further, I do not want to go in detail into the

statement made by the witnesses to give a finding in this order, as it would affect the interest of the Petitioners during trial.

Suffice to say that in my opinion, the allegations made in the charge-sheet and the statement given by the witnesses during investigation are

sufficient to make out the prima facie against the Petitioners for filing the charge-sheet and whether those allegations are sufficient to sustain the

conviction or acquittal can be decided by the Trial Court.

The submission of the learned Senior Counsel and the Counsel appearing for the Petitioners is that having regard to the orders passed in W.P.

No. 1979 of 2009 and the order passed in SLP(C) No. 2519 of 2004, the charge-sheet is liable to be quashed cannot be accepted.

As stated supra, W.P. No. 1979 of 2009 was filed by one Ashok Chandra seeking to quash the final orders on the Show Cause Notice,

dated 24.12.2002 issued by AICTE against the College and the Trust. Before the Hon''ble Supreme Court based on the Affidavit of Professor

Madhu Murti on behalf of the Technical Education stating that the Director of Technical Education found that there was no irregularity and the

same was accepted by Ashok Chandra and on that basis, SLP was dismissed. In those proceedings, the suppression of various deficiencies

pointed out by Natesan Committee or Kannan Committee were not discussed and the gravamen of the charges leveled against the Petitioners was

that they colluded and conspired together and the First Accused deliberately suppressed various irregularities and placed before the authorities that

the Second Accused had complied with the irregularities pointed by the Committee knowing fully well that those vital irregularities or deficiencies

were not rectified. Therefore, the materials now produced by the defence will not lead to the conclusion that the charges are baseless. In the result,

I do not find any merit in the Criminal Original Petitions and accordingly, the same are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions

are closed.