SURESH CHANDRA MOOKERJI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.2.2003 passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance, South Bihar, Patna in Special Case No. 30 of 2000 whereby it has taken cognizance of the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 109, 116, 119, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and directed for issuance of summons against the petitioner and other accused persons.

(2.) ONE Pramod Singh Chandrawanshi had filed CWJC No. 7146 of 1998 (Parmod Singh vs. Chandrawanshi vs. State of Bihar and others) before this Court inter alia challenging the action of the Magadh University in declaring one Sikha Gupta of having passed the M.A.History examination in Sessions 1993 -95 in Ist Class and its action in giving appointment to her as part time lecturer in A. N. College, Gaya. This Court while considering the grant of degree to said Shikha Gupta observed as follows: - "The degree was given to respondent no. 7 evidently by fraudulent means. This is the inevitable conclusion in the light of the material finally coming before this Court; it is another matter that the University produced the relevant documents bit by bit and also, it appeared to this Court, quite grudgingly. From the relevant materials it appears that respondent no. 7 appeared for the examination of Paper I held on 5.9.1996 and her answer sheets along with the answer sheets of all the other examinees of the examination centre (A. N. College Gaya) were sent by the Centre Superintendent to the Examiner of that paper under a single despatch memo. Thereafter, she never appeared at the examination centre for the examination of the remaining seven papers and she was shown absent in the attendance sheets for those examinations. For papers II to VII the answer sheets of examinees present for the examinations were sent by the Centre Superintendent to the examiners of the respective papers under despatch memos on each day those examinations were held but as respondent no.7 was absent in those papers the despatch memos under which the answer sheets did not include her answersheets. It, however, appears that she was clandestinely supplied with the blank answer sheets of the University which were obviously stolen from the University Office and taken out unauthorisedly. On the answer sheets given to her, examinations of papers II to VII were wirtten outside the examination hall (when and where are yet to be disclosed). Then someone sent her answer -sheets for papers II to VII to the respective examiners under separate despatch memos each containing a single answer sheet. According to the Centre Superintendent, A. N. College, Gaya, those despatch memos were not prepared by nim and the signatures thereon were not his. Curiously, every examiner accepted the single answer sheet of respondent no.7 and no one seems to have wondered why a single answer sheet was coming under a separate despatch memo and not as part of the main bundle from any examination centre. Each examiner corrected and marked the answer sheets of respondent no.7 and the mark sheets were sent to the University. The rest was routine. The marks of respondent no.7, like all other examinees, were tabulated and an official marksheet, duly signed by the University authorities was issued to her showing her pass, in Ist Class, in M.A. History examination. The answer sheets of respondent no.7 have been produced before this Court. The printed numbers on those answer sheets are not in any sequence, either ascending or descending but those are at random. From the writings in the answer -sheets for the different papers it cannot be said definitely that all the answer -sheets were written by the same person and there is some ground for the suspicion that the answer -sheets of the different papers were written by different persons. From the way the scheme was worked out, it is plain and clear that respondent no.7 was being actively aided and abetted by persons inside the University or closely associated with the University." This Court then observed as follows: - "As much as the University appears to be unwilling to let the full facts come to light, this Court is determined to get to the bottom of this matter and to see that the wrong doers should face the legal consequences of their deeds." This Court went to the extent of observing as follows: - "The episode of granting the spurir ous degree to the wife of a Police Officer was sufficiently bad. But what is worse and far more distressing to the Court is the recalcitrance show by the University authorities in taking any remedial measure to correct the situation. Metaphorically speaking, the University authorities stand before this Court with their pants down. But they do not show any sign of remorse or shame. Instead of trying to cover their nudity they seem to be trying to cover up those responsible for their nudity."

(3.) IN the light of the direction of this Court, C.I.D. Case No. 64 of 2000 dated 17.10.2000 was registered against the petitioner and other accused persons. Police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioner. In the investigation it has been found that accused Sikha Gupta appeared in one paper of the M.A.History examination of the session 1993. -95 which was held in the year 1996 but remained absent from the examination centre for the rest seven papers but the documents and answer books were fabricated and ultimately she has been declared to have passed the examination in first division. It has further been said that Sikha Gupta was appointed as part time Lecturer in the law faculty of the A.M.College and paid the salary for 13 months. On receipt of the chargesheet the learned judge had taken cognizance of the offence and directed for issuance of summons.