The court established that the discharge of an accused under Sec. 227 of the Cr.P.C. requires a thorough examination of the evidence, and the presence of corroborative material is essential to justify the continuation of criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner/accused No.8 is before this Court calling in question order dtd. 27/1/2020 by which the XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru rejects the application filed by the petitioner in Special C.C.No.106 of 2008 seeking her discharge from the array of accused.

2. Facts adumbrated are as follows:-

The petitioner is a doctor by profession, a participant in the postgraduate entrance test conducted by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences ('the University' for short) for admission to postgraduate course. The petitioner came out successful in the written test securing high percentage of marks and was accordingly given admission to postgraduate course. A little later a paper publication crops up to the effect that few of the students who had poor academic career hitherto had secured high marks in the post graduate entrance examination. The issue was blown out in the media which necessitated the Government to constitute a Committee to go into veracity of the allegations made in the conduct of examination as projected by the media. This led to the matter being entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI' for short) as certain conspiracy came about in the opinion of the Committee, which had opined that all was not well with the conduct of postgraduate entrance examination. The CBI then steps in, registers a crime alleging that accused No.1 who was the ViceChancellor of the University and accused No.2, the then Registrar of the University, during their period between 22/7/2005 and 21/7/2007 along with Dr. Hanumantha Prasad, Assistant Registrar of the University had hatched a conspiracy with other accused who were candidates in the entrance examination and pursuant to the criminal conspiracy so hatched, question papers of the entrance examination were leaked specifically to persons who had been named as accused in the FIR. The CBI then conducts investigation and files a charge sheet before the concerned Court. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.8. On filing of the charge sheet the petitioner had approached this Court seeking a direction of registration of her postgraduate degree in general medicine as it was not done on account of the charge sheet being filed by the Police against the petitioner. This Court disposed of the writ petition with certain directions. The petitioner then prefers an application under Sec. 227 of the Cr.P.C. seeking her discharge from the array of accused. The concerned Court in terms of its order dtd. 27/1/2020 rejects the application for discharge not only of the petitioner but all those who had preferred discharge applications before the concerned Court in Special C.C.No.106 of 2008. It is the order that refuses to discharge the petitioner, along with entire proceedings, that are called in question in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri Mahesh S, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that accused Nos. 3 to 20 took Post Graduate Entrance Test 2006 ('PGET' for short) and all of them emerged successful which was perceived to be product of malpractice. The submission that one of the aspects projected to prove the commission of offence is that among 16 candidates arrayed as accused, they had previously secured low marks and suddenly got up to the marks and secured rank in the PGET. The learned counsel submits that this projection is inapplicable to the case of the petitioner as the petitioner has been a bright student throughout in the postgraduate exams or otherwise. The prosecution projects the polygraph examination and brain mapping analysis which has turned out to be positive in the case of several candidates including the petitioner. It is for that reason the concerned Court has rejected the discharge application of the petitioner. He would contend that mer