The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of circumstantial evidence in proving criminal conspiracy and the applicability of the Maharashtra Universities Act to criminal prosecution.

1. Heard Shri Amol Mardikar, Advocate, for the applicant and Shri R.P.Joshi, Special P.P. for respondent no.1- State. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. By this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. the applicant is seeking quashing of the proceedings in R.C.C. No. 349/02 pending on the file of Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, wherein she is proceeded for the offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471, 190, 120(B) r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C.

3. The facts in brief. The applicant had appeared for examination First M.B.B.S. Standard in the academic session 1995-96. She was student of Jawaharlal Nehru College, Savangi, District-Wardha. It is alleged that she was declared .fail. initially. Then she applied for revaluation of her papers in two subjects namely .Bio-Chemistry. and .Physiology. . In both these subjects she had received the mark-sheets for changed marks. According to her, in Bio-Chemistry 5 marks were increased, so also in Physiology 15 marks were increased. It is her submission that since the total of marks on revaluation was incorrect, so third mark sheet was issued to her. It is the case of the respondent prosecution that there was one police case in which, it was detected that some malpractices, irregularities were committed in giving marks of revaluations to the students by the University officials. The episode is known as .University Scam., in which several students who had applied for revaluation, got their marks increased and got through the examination by malpractice, forgeries & by committing criminal offences. It is the prosecution case that the applicant's case was one of those cases and in the process of commission of these offences, Respondent Nos. 3 , 4 & 5 (who are not served), who are co-accused, were also the participants in commission of crime. After due investigation, the applicant & respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471, 109, 120(B) r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C., so also several other students and the University officials in various criminal cases. According to the University Authorities and the prosecution, in respect of this applicant, when revaluation process was carried out, her marks were initially decreased and therefore, it was an 'adverse change'. However, later on, her marks were increased, though the remark of 'adverse change' remained as it was in the register and she was declared .pass.. The details are given in the charge sheet.

4. According to the applicant, she did not take any part in the process of increase of marks in the revaluation. Those were only University Officials who were responsible for such things and in fact she was not at all concerned with this conspiracy. According to her, she has been accidently found, in whose case the marks were found to be increased. Raising several other grounds & contending that no criminal proceedings can be launched against the applicant, the application for discharge was filed by the applicant in the trial Court and the same was rejected by the detailed order of the learned trial Judge on 5th June, 2007. Hence, this petition has been filed to seek .discharge. and for quashing of proceedings against her.

5. Considering the circumstances of the case, interim stay to the proceedings against the applicant was ordered on 20.12.2007. The matter, considering its urgency, is finally heard.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Amol Mardikar, has submitted that as the applicant was declared .fail. in her First M.B.B.S. Examination, she had applied for revaluation of two papers i.e. Bio-Chemistry and Physiology. This was the .only. role played by her in all the process. According to him, she was not party, nor she was coconspirator to commit any offence. It was by chance that her marks were increased in those two subjects. It is further his submission that the relevant F.I.R. did not mention the name of this applicant,