AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prafulla C. Pant, J.—By means of this petition moved u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the charge sheet dated 29.12.2011, registered as criminal case no. 1 of 2012, CBI vs. Dr. Ved Prakash and others, relating to offences punishable u/s 120B, 420, 468, 471 IPC (arisen out of FIR No. RC0072010A0012) pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the papers on record.
The petitioner is a Chairman of Sri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical and Health Sciences, run by Sri Guru Ram Rai Education Management Committee. It appears that a CBI case was registered on the basis of the enquiry report of team of Inspectors under instructions from the Board of Governors constituted by Government of India, in place of Medical Council of India, by exercising powers in Ordinance no. 2 of 2010. On the basis of said report, First Information Report was lodged on 28.10.2010, in respect of the offences punishable u/s 120B and 420 IPC, and also one in respect of section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is reported that on enquiry apart from huge deficiencies of equipments, there were deficiencies relating to the faculties in the Institute. Also it was found that fictitious patients were shown admitted in the hospital in order to run the Institute and get its recognition. CBI, after investigation, submitted charge sheet against Dr. (Brig. Retd.) Ved Prakash, Medical Superintendent, Dr. V.K. Bihari Dy. Medical Superintendent, Dr. S.K. Ghildiyal and the petitioner Mahant Sri Devendra Das Ji.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Medical college got the recognition for M.B.B.S., course in the year 2005-06, for a year, and thereafter number of teams of Medical Council of India investigated the premises of the Medical college and the hospital, and consequently further recognition was granted year to year for further three years. It is also submitted that the deficiencies pointed out by the team of Inspectors on the basis of which the First Information Report was lodged cannot by itself constitute the offence as against the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner is not the man responsible for day to day functioning of the Institute, as such criminal liability cannot be attached to him. It is also argued that mere finding that the petitioner had signed certain appointment letters of the Doctors who were found not working in the Institute, by itself does not complete the chain of circumstances on the basis of which it can be said that the petitioner had complicity in the crime.
On going through the papers on record, this Court is of the view that there are factual pleas of defence relating to innocence of the petitioner raised in the petition. Such pleas cannot be examined by this Court in its jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C.. It is for the trial court to examine the factual pleas of defence as to whether the petitioner has any complicity in the crime or not.
Relying on various case laws, it is pleaded that the Apex Court time and again held that the Directors of the company who are not responsible for day to day functioning of the organization or who have no knowledge of the technical matters cannot be said to have committed the crime. However, in the present case the petitioner is admittedly Chairman of the Management Committee of the Institute.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner may be allowed to withdraw the petition with liberty to take pleas of defence before the trial court. Accordingly, the petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as above. It is further observed that if the petitioner appears before the trial court his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay.