Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR Against Retired Law Professor, Cites Lack of Tangible Evidence for Conspiracy

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling, quashed a charge sheet and cognizance order against a retired law professor, Dr. Shyam Sunder Sharma, in a corruption and conspiracy case. The court held that criminal proceedings cannot be sustained on mere suspicion or the uncorroborated statement of a co-accused-turned-witness, especially in the absence of tangible evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy.

The single-judge bench of Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit , invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), set aside the 2017 charge sheet filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and the subsequent cognizance order issued by the Special Judge, Sessions Court (Prevention of Corruption Act), Jodhpur.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an FIR lodged in 2014 against officials of Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur, alleging abuse of official position and criminal conspiracy. The allegations centered on the fraudulent amendment of University Ordinance No. 317, which governs the qualifications for Assistant Professor appointments. This amendment allegedly facilitated the selection of ineligible candidates.

Dr. Shyam Sunder Sharma, a retired law professor, was implicated by the ACB. The prosecution's case against him was primarily based on two grounds: 1. He was part of a conspiracy to fraudulently amend the ordinance. 2. The amendment allegedly benefited his son, who was later appointed as an Associate Professor at the university.

Arguments Before the Court

Petitioner's Submissions:

Dr. Sharma's counsel argued that he was wrongly implicated. They contended that: - The initial draft of the ordinance amendment, prepared by a committee convened by Dr. Sharma, was fully compliant with UGC regulations. - The controversial changes to the qualifications for 'Assistant Professor' were proposed later by two other members of the Academic Council, not by Dr. Sharma's committee. - The entire Academic Council, comprising 86 members, approved the final amended ordinance, yet only Dr. Sharma was singled out and prosecuted. - The allegation that the amendment benefited his son was baseless, as the controversy pertained to the 'Assistant Professor' post, whereas his son was appointed as an 'Associate Professor' based on his own merit (LL.M. Gold Medalist, NET, and PhD). - The prosecution's case heavily relied on the statement of the then-Registrar, Ms. Nirmala Meena, who claimed Dr. Sharma prepared and brought the misleading covering letter for her signature. Counsel argued this was an uncorroborated statement from a person who was herself responsible for the correspondence and was made a witness to shift blame.

Respondent's Submissions:

The Public Prosecutor, representing the state and the ACB, opposed the petition. They argued that: - The statement of the then-Registrar, Ms. Nirmala Meena, directly implicated Dr. Sharma in the preparation of the deceptive letter sent to the government. - A statement from another witness, Dr. Shiv Prakash Gupta, alleged that Dr. Sharma had pressured him over the phone to alter scrutiny forms, indicating his involvement. - Dr. Sharma's son’s appointment provided a clear motive, establishing his vested interest in the conspiracy.

Court's Analysis and Key Precedent

Justice Purohit conducted a meticulous review of the charge sheet and case files. The court found that the prosecution's own documents confirmed that the initial draft by Dr. Sharma's committee was proper. The contentious amendment was introduced later at the behest of other council members and was approved by the entire Academic Council and the Syndicate.

The court observed that the responsibility for the misleading covering letter sent to the government, which omitted the changes related to Assistant Professor qualifications, lay with the Registrar, who signed and dispatched it. The statements of other university officials indicated that the letter was processed through official channels and presented to the Registrar for signature by her staff.

The court placed significant reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. K. Narayana Rao (2012) , which outlined the principles for establishing a criminal conspiracy.

"The ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the persons... the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence... an offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inference which are not supported by cogent and acceptable evidence."

Applying this precedent, the court concluded that the prosecution's case against Dr. Sharma was built on suspicion and the uncorroborated statement of the Registrar, without any tangible evidence of his participation in a conspiracy.

The court noted:

"In this case, the petitioner is implicated on the basis that the then Registrar, Smt. Nirmala Meena... stated that the letter was prepared and presented by Shyam Sunder Sharma... There is no signature of the petitioner anywhere on any note-sheet regarding this. He has been implicated solely on the basis of the false statement of Nirmala Meena, which prima facie is liable to be quashed."

Final Decision

Finding no prima facie case against the petitioner, the High Court allowed the petition. It ruled that allowing the trial to continue against Dr. Sharma based on the existing evidence would be unjust.

The court ordered:

"Therefore, accepting the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the cognizance order dated 20-02-2017... is quashed to the extent of the petitioner, and the charge-sheet number 13 dated 23-01-2017... is also quashed to the extent of the petitioner Shyam Sunder Sharma."