These appeals are directed against appellants conviction for various offences and sentences imposed upon them for those offences by the learned 2nd Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, in Criminal Case No.358 of 2002.

2. In the year 1999, a scandal of bogus degrees. mark-sheets and unwarranted increase of marks in revaluation at various examinations conducted by the Nagpur University surfaced. The University authorities reported the matter to police, whereupon various crimes including Crime No.346 of 1993 were registered on 24-3-1999 on the complaint of Shri. Prakash Mistry, original accused No.2. Eventually, in Crime No.348 of 1999, Shri. Prakash Mistry was himself arrested by the police. Investigation into the crimes was conducted by P.I. Sayyad and after him by PSI AniL Lokhande. Originally one charge-sheet was filed bearing Regular Criminal Case No.387 of 1999 and after separate trials were ordered, separate supplementary charge-sheets for various offences came to be filed against various offenders.

3. Facts, which led to prosecution and conviction of the appellants are as under:

Appellant Shailesh Tupkari in Criminal Appeal No.219 of 2007, who was accused No.1 before the Trial Court, was a student, who had appeared at Part II of BE Examination in Winter 1995. He failed in some of the subjects at the said examination. The Nagpur University permitted revaluation of answer books in terms of Ordinance No.159 at the instance of such failed candidates. Therefore, accused No.1 Shailesh Tupkari applied for revaluation of his papers of Network Theory (N/T) and Electronic Devices and Circuits (EC) by paying requisite fees.

4. Procedure for conduct of examinations is prescribed in Ordinance No.9 issued by the Nagpur University. It provides, among other things, from clause 57 onwards, for appointment of tabulators, scrutineers, etc., and their respective roles. This ordinance did not provide for revaluation, which facility was introduced by Ordinance No.159. Ordinance No.159 providing for revaluation merely gives sketchy procedure about revaluation. It does not lay down the procedure to be followed internally by the University administration. Therefore, it may be taken that the provisions of Ordinance No.9 would apply mutatis mutandis to revaluation as well.

5. The practice, which was followed by the University officials for such revaluation has been deposed to by PW 1 Narayan Ghatole, an employee of the University in the Revaluation Section. According to him, after a candidate applied for revaluation after paying the prescribed fee, an entry used to be taken in the Revaluation Tabulation Register (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTR' for the sake or brevity). The RTR contains the following columns :

I) Sr. No.

II) Case No.

III) Date and amount

IV) Roll No./Code No.

V) Name

VI) Subject paper

VII) Maximum marks examiner in revaluation

VIII) Original Marks

IX) Marks of 1st examiner in revaluation

X) Marks of 2nd examiner in revaluation

XI) Average marks in both

XII) Result/change or no change

XIII) % increase or decrease

XIV) Signature of scrutineer

XV) Remarks

The Clerks in the Revaluation Section used to fill up column nos.(I) to (IV) and (VI) to (VIII) on the basis of the material which they already had. Requisition for relevant answer books used to be sent to the godown. After the answer books were received, the portion of the answer book containing roll number of the candidate and marks obtained by him in the original valuation used to be masked. A code number used to be printed on the answer book by using a numbering machine.

6. The answer books of students in the Engineering faculty used to be taken by a special messenger to the examiners appointed for the purpose of revaluation. Normally, the answer book used to be taken to a College in another University, where the Principal or the Head of the Department in the College concerned, used to assign the task of revaluation to the examiners in the said College