The absence of dishonest intention is crucial in determining criminal prosecution under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Sunil Gaur, J.

Trial court vide impugned order of 22nd February, 2018 has declined to accept the Closure Report (Annexure P-2) filed in FIR No. RC 08(A)/2016/AC-111/New Delhi, titled as CBI Vs. Prof. P.B. Sharma and has taken cognizance for the offences under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth referred to as the "PC Act") and summoned the petitioners as accused.

2. These three petitions arise out of common impugned order of 22nd February, 2018 wherein the factual background of this case stands noticed. Suffice to note that Delhi Technological College (DTU) had invited applications for the post of Professors and Associate Professors in various departments by way of advertisement of 3rd December, 2011. On the basis of information received regarding Professor P.B. Sharma, the then Vice Chancellor of DTU, having committed irregularities in selecting candidates who were not eligible for the post of Professors and Associate Professors, FIR in question was registered. The source information received by the respondent, was that by misusing his official position, petitioner-Professor P.B. Sharma had caused undue benefit to the ineligible candidates i.e. Dr. Deepa Sinha, Dr. C.P. Singh, Dr. Parvir Kumar and Dr. Jai Gopal Sharma. The aforesaid source information was investigated upon and it was found that selection of the aforesaid candidates for different disciplines was approved by the Board of Management. While dealing with the Closure Report (Annexure P-2), trial court in the impugned order has referred to Section 13(4) of the Delhi Technology University Act, 2009 (henceforth referred to as the "DTU Act") to observe that this provision does not give unbridled powers to the Vice Chancellor and that the Vice Chancellor cannot misuse the powers, which are bestowed upon him by the Board of Management. It is observed in the impugned order that even if it is assumed that immediate action was necessary and Vice Chancellor exercised his powers under Section 13(4) of DTU Act, still there was no material to show that the Vice Chancellor had reported to 'Board of Management' about the action taken by him i.e. calling candidates for interview who were ineligible.

3. Trial court in the impugned order concludes that petitioner-Professor P.B. Sharma had entered into criminal conspiracy with Dr. C.P. Singh, who was then serving as Assistant Professor, to select Dr. C.P. Singh on the post of Associate Professor. According to trial court, a prima facie case of criminal misconduct, as defined in Section 13 of PC Act is made out against petitioners-Prof. P.B. Sharma, Dr. Deepa Sinha, Dr. C.P. Singh, Dr. Parvir Kumar and Dr. Jai Gopal Sharma.

4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the above captioned three petitions were heard together, as they spring out of common impugned order and therefore vide this common order, these petitions are being disposed of.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners assailed the impugned order on the ground that the power exercised by petitioner-Prof. P.B. Sharma was justified and the selection of petitioners - Dr. C.P. Singh, Dr. Deepa Sinha, Dr. Parvir Kumar and Dr. Jai Gopal Sharma was duly approved by the Board of Management. To submit so, attention of this Court was drawn to the Closure Report (Annexure P-2) to point out that Dr. C.P. Singh and Dr. Deepa Sinha had applied for the post of Associate Professor in Applied Mathematics and it was found that as per calculation, the percentage possessed by Dr. Deepa Sinha came to be 64%, whereas as per general instructions of the advertisement of 3rd December, 2011, 60% was equivalent to first division. The Closure Report (Annexure P-2) concludes that Dr. C.P. Singh was selected after a note of 25th January, 2012 was put up before petitioner-Prof. P.B. Sharma, the then Vice Chancellor stating as under:-

"Thereafter a note was put up by the VC on dated 25.01.2012 stating "Shortlisting committee may decide to relax in view of rich expe