UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI Vs. MADHAV GAJANAN DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition challenges the order passed by the 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate's Court which has issued process against the petitioners on 16.5.1996. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were the Vice-Chancellor and the Controller of Examinations of Petitioner No.1 University, respectively. On 14.5.1996, Respondent No.1 filed a complaint under sections 465 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code r/w 120B alleging that the petitioners were responsible for forgery and manipulation of the results for the second year LL.B. Company Law examination paper held in October 1995. On the basis of this complaint, the learned Magistrate issued process on 16.5.1996. The petitioners preferred an application for discharge on 5.6.1996. It appears that the discharge application was not heard for various reasons detailed in the petition. An application was then made on behalf of Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 16.12.1998 seeking exemption from appearance. However, this application was refused. Hence, the present petition seeking quashing of the process issued against the petitioners.

(2.) WRIT Petition No.40 of 1996 was filed by two students of law praying that an expert panel be appointed to examine the Company Law papers for the second year LL.B. examination to ascertain whether there were any irregularities in the assessment of those answer papers. The Dharmadhikari Committee was appointed by this Court on 12.1.1996. A report was submitted by the Committee giving its findings and detailed recommendations. Thereafter, another committee known as the Lentin Committee was appointed. The Lentin Committee report was submitted on 11.4.1996 wherein it found that there were several mal practices in the correction of the papers. Three examiners were found responsible for these mal practices. The committee found that the manipulation of marks benefited some candidates. However, the Committee also noted that no ulterior motives can be ascribed to the Vice-Chancellor "for not taking vigorous action in the matter till 1/2.1.1996."

(3.) THERE is no material on record to indicate that the petitioners were even remotely connected with the irregularities which came to light in the correction of the second year LL.B. Company Law Paper. The Lentin committee had observed that "whether the quid pro quo was to curry favour with the influential or whether it was for the monetary consideration or worse, would be pure detective work best entrusted to an official investigative agency either the CID or CBI." While observing as aforesaid, the Lentin committee also observed that the petitioner No.2 could not be ascribed any ulterior motives in not taking vigorous action in the matter till 1/2.1.1996. While accepting the Lentin Committee report, A.P. Shah, J. however, has negatived the suggestion made to refer the matter to either the CID or CBI to carry out further investigations.