JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed against the judgment in Special Calender Case No.9 of

2010 on the file of learned Special Judge, Puducherry, wherein, appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 420 and 468 I.P.C and sentenced.

2.There are two accused in this case. Appellant is a first accused and one P.Agilan is a second accused. Charges against the accused is that during 2007, certain malpractices were noticed in the conduct of examination of Engineering and Medical stream conducted by Pondicherry University and marks were deliberately inflated to unduly favour students leading to declaring those candidates, who have otherwise not secured sufficient marks to be declared as passed the subject. On source information, a case was registered in R.C.No.MA1 2008A0065 on 21.12.2008, against the accused and some others for the offences punishable under Sections 120 B r/w. 420, 468 r/w. 471 I.P.C and Section 13 (1) (d) r/w. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. First accused/appellant was the Assistant Professor and the second accused was a student of Pondicherry Engineering College. Pondicherry University assigned dummy number 369 to the answer script of second accused P.Agilan. His answer script was evaluated by appellant. After the examination was over P.Agilan met appellant and enter into a criminal conspiracy to cheat Pondicherry University in the matter of inflating marks to P.Agilan in the subject Mechanics of Solid – II. Appellant awarded 8 marks each for question numbers 4, 6 and 9. However, while mentioning the total marks, he wrongly shown the total marks as 27 instead of 24 marks on the answer scripts as well as in the mark wall list on the same day by abusing his official position as an examiner. He struck off the originally awarded marks on the front page of the answer script and fraudulently and dishonestly awarded 12 marks for question number 3, 8 marks for question number 4, 14 marks for question number 6 and 14 marks for question number 9. As a result, total marks awarded had been inflated to 48 from 24, but appellant wrongly mentioned the total as 40 on the answer script as well as mark wall list. P.Agilan answered question numbers 4 and 6 alone and did not answer question number 3. Marks were awarded to un-answered question also. Therefore, these charges.

3.The Trial Court framed charges under Section 120 B r/w. 420 I.P.C against accused 1 and 2 and under Section 420 I.P.C r/w. 120-B I.P.C, 468 I.P.C r/w. 120-B I.P.C, 471 I.P.C r/w. 120-B I.P.C. and 13 (2) r/w. 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the appellant. Accused denied the charges and demanded trial.

4.Prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 witnesses and produced Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 documents in support of its case. Appellant and P.Agilan examined D.W.1 and produced Ex.D1 to D3 in support of their case.

5.The case of the prosecution, as seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, in brief, is as follows:

P.W.3 was working as Controller of Examination during the relevant period.

He was responsible for over all supervision of the examination conducted by Pondicherry University. There are persons responsible for each branch of subjects. P.W.4 Dr.V.Chitra was in charge of Engineering subject. She stated during the course of her evidence, the scheme of conducting examination, starting from issuance of notification, appointment of persons responsible for conducting the examination, preparation of question paper, conducting examination, evaluation of answer scripts and then declaration of results. P.W.4, when she was working as Deputy Registrar in Pondicherry University was responsible for over all supervision to conduct the examination for B.Tech, M.Phil., programs. After the evaluation of answer scripts, mark wall list will be taken from answer sheet and then sent to computer lab for making entry. While checking the mark wall list, she found some tampering of marks and on verifying the answer script found that there was discrepa