S K SONI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition, the Petitioner lays a challenge to the judgment dated 6th April, 2009 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 44/2008 filed against the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicting and sentencing the Appellant for offence under Section 24 of the University Grants Commission Act (in short 'UGC Act') and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner is the Secretary of "Commercial University Limited", a public limited company incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office for more than 50 years and conducting various commercial courses like typing, short -hand etc. and awarding certificates. Since the name of the company itself include University, in terms of Section 147 of the Companies Act, 1956, the company is duty bound to paint and affix the its name at its office and any contravention thereof is liable to be punished with a fine, which may extend to Rs. 5000/ -. The complainant, who has no locus standi and is a disgruntled student, got the FIR registered against the Petitioner being FIR No. 309/1991 for offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 24 UGC Act registered at PS Daryaganj. Both the Courts below found that no case for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC was made out, however convicted the Petitioner for offence under Section 24 UGC Act and directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Briefly the facts leading to filing of the present petition are that the Petitioner is the Secretary of Commercial University Limited. A complaint was filed by one P.K. Ambalavanan that the Petitioner is misrepresenting that they were having formal sanction from the UGC for running a University and on the said misrepresentation, the complainant was made to enroll with this so called University for Ph.D and a sum of Rs. 3240/ - was taken from him. During the course of trial, witnesses were examined both by the Prosecution and the, defence. PW -1 Shri R.K. Gulati, Desk Officer in UGC has stated that the Petitioner's company is neither recognized by the UGC nor established by the Legislature. He produced the list of recognized universities, press notes, etc. in this regard. PW -2 A.N. Rai, Principal Information Officer, UGC was also examined, who exhibited a press release which has listed 27 institutions as fake Universities wherein the name of Petitioner's company was also mentioned. The Courts below acquitted the Petitioner of the charge under Section 420 IPC as K. Ambalavanan the complainant had not been examined and thus it could not be proved that he had been cheated. However, on the basis of other material evidence on record, the Petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 24 UGC Act for using the word "University" in violation of Section 23 of the UGC Act.