LAKSHMI ROY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against the order dated 1.3.2005 passed by the Special Judge. CBI, North Bihar, Patna in Special Case No. 23 of 1997-RC Case No. 43 of 1997 taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471, 193, 196, 201 and 204 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988.

(2.) The factual matrix for disposal of the present case is that at the relevant time the petitioner was the Principal of the Regional Institute of Technology (R.I.T.) Jamshedpur. This case relates to Combined Engineering Entrance Examination (in short hereinafter referred to as CEEE), 1996 conducted by Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology (MIT), co-convenor and convenor respectively Shri R.C. Das 'Vikal' and Kameshwar Prasad of MIT The said examination was held on 30.6.1996 and the result was published on 2.8.1996.

(3.) Some unsuccessful candidates challenged the examination on the ground that manipulations and bunglings have been done by the convenor and co-convenor alongwith the Minister, Science and Technology Department and other members associated with the examination. This Court disposed of the writ applications being CWJC Nos. 76666, 7779 and 8122 of 1996, cancelled the examination and directed the CBI to enquire into the matter. The petitioner at the relevant time was the Principal of RIT, Jamshedpur and he was also associated with the examination. The CBI proceeded with the investigation and found deep rooted conspiracy of the petitioner and others which resulted into unfair means adopted in getting the candidates successful in the examination. After investigations, the CBI submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and others and cognizance was taken on 19.10.2001 for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and others. The same was challenged by the petitioner in this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 33510 of 2001 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court finally on 6.9.2002 reported in 2002 (4) PLJR 205, and the Court came to the conclusion that the sanction was not properly granted. In the concluding portion of this judgment this Court held that sanction for prosecution has been granted by the Chairman of the Board of Governors which is not competent to sanction prosecution and accordingly the order of cognizance was quashed. Thereafter, it appears that the CBI obtained a fresh sanction from the Board of Governors of RIT now NIT, Jamshedpur in terms of the rules of the Institute which granted sanction for prosecution and the order of sanction was issued by the signature of the Chairman dated 29.12.2004 and thereafter the CBI after obtaining approval of the State Government and the Central Government as per rules submitted a fresh charge-sheet on 22.2.2005 on the basis of which cognizance has been taken.