Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Dr. Satish Kumar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India through C.B.I. - Opposite Party
Cr.M.P. No.1058 of 2020
Decided On : 17-04-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120 B, 201, 420, 468, 471 - Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) - Criminal Conspiracy - Manipulation - Examination controller-cum-secretary - Public servants in abuse of their respective official positions dishonestly and fraudulently manipulated - Co-accused persons respectively being member, examination controller-cum-secretary of Jharkhand Public Service Commission thus public servants along with a private person of M/s. Global Informatics and inter alia the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, public servants in abuse of their respective official positions dishonestly and fraudulently manipulated/allowed to manipulate merit list, assessment charts of the selection process of lecturers for 3 universities of Jharkhand through Jharkhand Eligibility Test to extend undue benefit to their preferred candidates including petitioner and inter alia dishonestly and fraudulently petitioner was declared qualified even though petitioner got marks less than the minimum marks required for said examination and for this purpose marks in assessment charts of petitioner was increased to extend undue favour to petitioner which facilitated selection of petitioner as a lecturer of Psychology - Specific allegation against petitioner is that petitioner was declared selected on basis of 54 marks for his career and 26.5 marks for interview i.e. total 80.5 marks - Petitioner was initially given 26 marks by one expert which was manipulated to 36 in Assessment Chart and as such, but for said manipulation, petitioner was only entitled to get 78 whereas minimum marks required was 80 and only because of said manipulation done in criminal conspiracy with co-accused public servants petitioner could succeed in getting selected as a lecturer in Psychology.
Finding of the Court: Average marks given by experts in interview to petitioner was worked out at 26.5 and this average mark of 26.5 was calculated being mean of the different marks given by different experts and was arrived at after manipulating initially given 26 marks by one of experts to 36 - There is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that no illegality was done in his selection process - It is then submitted by learned counsel for Central Bureau of Investigation that as at time of his selection when the offence was committed the petitioner was not a Public Servant hence no sanction for prosecution is required for prosecution of the petitioner - It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation that impugned order taking cognizance categorically reflects application of judicial mind on the part of the learned trial court and there is no illegality in the impugned order - Having heard submissions made at Bar and after going through material in record, it is crystal clear that this a clear cut case against petitioner that petitioner in criminal conspiracy with co-accused public servant member and controller of examinations of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission got marks awarded in interview by one of experts manipulated from 26 to 36 so as to bring the average of the marks given by experts to 26.5 - this court is of considered view that there is ample material in the record for learned trial court to take cognizance for offence punishable under Sections 120 B, 201, 420, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and that uncontroverted allegations, as made, establish a prima facie case against the petitioner of having committed said offence.
Result: Criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the Order dated 30.09.2019 taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 120 B, 201, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in R.C. Case No.04(A)/2013- R passed by learned A.J.C.-XVI-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the co-accused persons respectively being the member, examination controller-cum-secretary of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission thus public servants along with a private person of M/s. Global Informatics and inter alia the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, the public servants in abuse of their respective official positions dishonestly and fraudulently manipulated/allowed to manipulate the merit list, assessment charts of the selection process of lecturers for the 3 universities of Jharkhand through Jharkhand Eligibility Test (JET),2006 to extend undue benefit to their preferred candidates including the petitioner and inter alia dishonestly and fraudulently the petitioner was declared qualified even though the petitioner got marks less than the minimum marks required for the said examination and for this purpose marks in the assessment charts of the petitioner was increased to extend undue favour to the petitioner which facilitated the selection of the petitioner as a lecturer of Psychology. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was declared selected on the basis of 54 marks for his career and 26.5 marks for interview i.e. total 80.5 marks. The Central Forensic Science Laboratory deciphered that the petitioner was initially given 26 marks by one expert which was manipulated to 36 in the Assessment Chart and as such, but for the said manipulation, the petitioner was only entitled to get 78 whereas the minimum marks required was 80 and only because of the said manipulation done in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused public servants the petitioner could succeed in getting selected as a lecturer in Psychology. The co-accused member of Jharkhand Public Service Commission who was the chairman of the interview board in respect of the interview of the petitioner for the said purpose, in criminal conspiracy with the petitioner, did the manipulation. After completion of investigation of the case, the Central Bureau of Investigation submitted charge sheet inter alia finding that the petitioner along with the coaccused persons having committed the offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 201, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned trial court on perusal of the relevant documents found that offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 201, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out inter alia against the petitioner and vide order dated 30.09.2019 took cognizance for the said offences inter alia against the petitioner.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that though after being appointed as a lecturer the petitioner has become a Public Servant but no sanction for prosecution has been obtained for prosecuting the petitioner. It is next submitted that none of the offences alleged is made out against the petitioner. It is also submitted that the order taking cognizance is cryptic and non-speaking hence it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon’b
Prevention of corruption - Petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused public servant member and controller of examinations of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission got the marks awarded ....
The court emphasized that at the stage of taking cognizance, the court is not required to consider the defence version or the merits of the materials, and the court is not to examine the merits and d....
The court emphasized the principle that taking cognizance of an offence is not the same as issuing process, and that the application of judicial mind to the suspected commission of an offence is suff....
At the stage of taking cognizance, the court is not required to consider the defence version or evaluate the merits of the prosecution's evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that at the stage of taking cognizance, the court is not required to consider the defense version or evaluate the merits of the prosecution's evide....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing a prima facie case based on ample evidence in corruption cases, and the need for judicial officers to be trained in handling cases under the Pre....
Cognizance cannot be taken twice for the same offence, and prosecution sanction is mandatory for public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
