SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 383

Supreme Court of India
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.
Central Bureau of Investigation, Lucknow, U.P. – Appellant
Versus
Indra Bhushan Singh & Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 876 of 2002 With Criminal Appeal No. 877 of 2002
Decided On : 02-05-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Authority of the High Court was necessary u/s 195(1)(b) CrPC for filing complaint.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120-B and 193/196/420 r/w section 195(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Requirement of section 195(1)(b)(i) and (ii) – Deputy Registrar filing complaint without any authority conferred on him by the High Court – Therefore the complaint was not valid – It was not open to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the same. (Para 20)

       (1990) 4 SCC 633 – Referred

       (2005) 4 SCC 370 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

       In pursuance of High Court directions admission test for admission in post-graduate medical courses in State medical colleges was cancelled and it was decided to take admissions on basis of marks obtained at MBBS examination.

       The medical college in Meerut was not informed of the cancellation. Purportedly on basis of this order a similar order was passed by the Lucknow Bench of the High Court. However this order was found to be false and fraudulent. Hence CBI was asked to investigate.

       A complaint was filed by the Deputy Registrar (Administration), Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court against Dr. Rahul Verma and Indra Bhushan Singh, the persons behind the fraud . The complaint was filed under the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sought punishment of the accused persons under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 193/196/420 thereof and independently under Section 193 of the IPC.

       In this case three questions arise for determination: (i) whether the complaint filed against the respondents under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was authorized by the Allahabad High Court; (ii) whether it was necessary to obtain a sanction from the Allahabad High Court for filing the complaint against the respondents, and (iii) if a sanction was necessary, whether it was in fact obtained.

       Finding of the Court:

       The complaint being not valid, it was not open to Magistrate to take cognizance of the same.

       Result: Appeals dismissed.

Judgment :-

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The three questions before us are: (i) whether the complaint filed against the respondents under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was authorized by the Allahabad High Court; (ii) whether it was necessary to obtain a sanction from the Allahabad High Court for filing the complaint against the respondents, and (iii) if a sanction was necessary, whether it was in -fact obtained. In our opinion, the first question must be answered in the negative. Consequently, the second and third questions do not arise or are, at best, academic in nature and need not be answered. As such, the orders under appeal call for no interference.

The facts

2. On 25th May, 1990 a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court is said to have dealt with Writ Petition No. 5267 of 1990 (purportedly filed by Dr. Sheetal Nandwani) and passed an order to the effect that the competitive examinations scheduled to be held on 27th May, 1990 for admission in post-graduate medical courses in State medical colleges ought not to be held. Instead, admissions should be made on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in the MBBS course as has been done in MDS courses. With this brief order the writ petition was allowed.

3. In compliance with the order dated 25th May, 1990 the State Government cancelled the scheduled competitive examinations in seven medical colleges in Uttar Pradesh and a direction issued to grant admission on the basis of MBBS results.

4. For reasons that are not relevant, the medical college in Meerut was not informed of the cancellation. Therefore, Dr. Rahul -Verma, like several others, participated in the examination held on 27th May, 1990. However, unlike others he filed Writ Petition No. 5548 of 1990 in the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in which he sought and was granted, on 4th June, 1990 the same relief as Dr. Sheetal Nandwani on the basis of the order dated 25th May, 1990. He was represented in the case by his lawyer Indra Bhushan Singh. Dr. Rahul Verma is one of the respondents in Criminal Appeal No.877 of 2002 while Indra Bhushan Singh is the respondent in Criminal Appeal No.876 of 2002.

5. The order dated 25th May, 1990 was challenged in this Court and the result of the petition is reported as U.P. Junior Doctors’ Action Committee v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani and Others. [(1990) 4 SCC 633]

6. This Court found that no writ petition bearing no. 5267 of 1990 was filed by Dr. Sheetal Nandwani and obviously therefore no order was passed on 25th May, 1990 in the said case. It was found that the entire proceedings were fabricated and fake and this Court was satisfied that there was deep rooted conspiracy which resulted in the purported order dated 25th May, 1990. Consequently, this Court passed appropriate orders in the case and also directed that -the entire matter be investigated by the CBI which was required to identify the persons behind the deep rooted fraud and bring them to book without any delay. It was observed that the purity of the judicial stream should not be permitted to be polluted by a clandestine move such as the one that was the subject matter of discussion and citizens should not be misled by the actions of conspirators.

7. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court to investigate the conspiracy, the CBI searched the premises of Dr. Rahul Verma and found a copy of the order dated 25th May, 1990. The CBI also carried out investigations with regard to the role of Indra Bhushan Singh and others. We were informed by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the persons responsible for the fraud leading to the order dated 25th May, 1990 have not yet been identified although about 24 years have gone by.

8. Be that as it may, on 26th August, 1991 a complaint was filed by Shri H.D. Kandpal, Deputy Registrar (Administration), Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) in Lucknow against Dr. Rahul Verma and Indra Bhu

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top