Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.896 of 2018 and 3680 of 2017 are father and daughter respectively. They are accused 3 and 4 in FIR VC 21/2015 MPM of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode. In the FIR they are alleged to have committed the offence under Sections 120B and 409 IPC and under Section 13 (1)(e) and (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In this order the petitioners are referred to as accused.

3. In 2012 the 4th accused was a 6th semester B.Tech. student in Nehru College of Engineering, Pampadi. Her batch consisted of 128 students. The semester examination was held in December 2012. The students were split into two batches for practical examination. One batch consisted of 60 students and the other 68 students. For the first batch, the examination was conducted by one Sri. Kiran Samuel and for the second batch, by one Dr. Binu. When the results were published, in the first batch only two students failed, whereas in the second batch 27 students including the 4th accused failed. 24 students of the second batch were given the minimum pass mark of 40. On the date on which the results were published, the students who failed in the practical examination sent an e-mail to the University requesting it to conduct a detailed enquiry and to order re-examination. The University did not take any action. So on 7.4.2012, on behalf of 26 students a complaint was submitted before the University. The Vice Chancellor, who is the first accused, sent it to the 'Pareeksha Bhavan', which received it on 9.4.2012. One Assistant Registrar made a suggestion to obtain remarks of the chairperson of the Board of Examinations. The chairperson obtained the remarks of the external examiner Dr. Binu. No attempt was made to obtain the remarks of the internal examiner of the college. Remarks of the external examiner of the other batch, Sri. Kiran Samuel, also were obtained. The chairperson sent it to the University on 15.6.2012. Ignoring the report submitted by Sri. Kiran Samuel, the chairperson recommended not to conduct any re-examination. He took almost two months for submitting his report. As there was delay in submitting the report, the then Controller of Examinations, Dr. C.D. Sebastian, requested the System Administrator to conduct a comparative study of the marks scored by the students of both batches. This was complied with. It was revealed that the students of the second batch were 'not inferior to those of the first batch'. In the theory paper the students of both batches scored almost similar marks. The Controller of Examinations submitted the file to the Pro-Vice Chancellor. On 18.6.2012 the Pro-Vice Chancellor recommended to place the matter before the Standing Committee on Examinations. The matter was not placed before the Committee at its two subsequent meetings held in the next two months. Aggrieved by the decision taken by the Standing Committee on Examinations, the students made another representation to the Vice Chancellor on 6.8.2012, who forwarded it to the Pro-Vice Chancellor, who in his turn, examined the representation and recommended to conduct re-examination for the students who failed in the practical examination. The Vice Chancellor directed the Pro-Vice Chancellor to submit a panel of examiners, which was done. The file was sent to the 'Pareeksha Bhavan'. As there occurred much delay in conducting the examination, the 4th accused filed W.P(C) No. 20451 of 2012. The University submitted in the High Court that the re-examination would be conducted within ten days, as seen from Annexure-6 judgment. The re-examination was held on 7.9.2012. 26 students took the examination. The result was not approved by the chairperson of the Board of Examiners as the re-examination was conducted against her recommendations. In W.P.(C) No.24991 of 2012 filed by one student by name Sreejith, this court directed the University to publish the result and issue