Bangalore District Court
Cbi vs Thakur S K on 23 December, 2025
1 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
KABC010003952009
IN THE COURT OF XLVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI
CASES, BENGALURU (CCH-48)
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF DECEMBER 2025
PRESENT
Sri.Satish J.Bali, B.Com, LL.M,
XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
and Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Bengaluru.
SPL.CC.NO.234/2009
COMPLAINANT : State by Central Bureau of
Investigation, ACB, Bengaluru.
[By Public Prosecutor]
Versus
ACCUSED: 1. S.K. Thakur
S/o Raghuvir Singh Thakur,
Retired as a Professor in
Himachal University, Shimla,
Himachal Pradesh,
R/o B5, Friends Apartment,
Annadaile, Shimla -171 003.
Himachal Pradesh.
2 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
2. N.M. Theerthe Gowda,
S/o Matadiah, Secretary,
Dr. Radhakrishna Teachers
Educational Institution,
Devanahalli, Bengaluru(Rural),
R/o 141/B, 6th Main, 4th Block,
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru.
3. K. Rayar s/o Kathavarayan,
Member,
National Council for Teachers
Education, Southern Region
Committee, Bengaluru.
R/o No. 379, Jaya Illam,
Thanthal Periyar Nagar,
TPTC Nagar, Opp.Aavin Milk,
N.H.45, Villupurm, Tamil Nadu.
4. Dr. Jeevan Jyothi Sidhana,
W/o Mohinder Pai Sidhana,
Principal, Cheema College of
Education, Kishnkot,
Near Ghuman, Amritsar -
Mehta- Hargobindpur,
R/o No. 38-B, Rani Ka 'Bagh',
Government College for
Women Road, Amritsar,
Punjab.
5. Dr. I.S. Suri
S/o Sita Ram Suri,
Professor (Retd.,),
State Council of Educational
Research and Training (SCERT)
New Delhi,
R/o L-1/168 B, DDA Flats,
Alakhnanda, New Delhi.
A1 - By Sri GJ, Advocate
3 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
A2 - By Sri KPC, Advocate
A3 - By Sri DR, Advocate
A4 & A5 - By Sri BH, Advocate
1.Date of Commission of Offence : During the year
2003-06
2. Date of Report of Offence : 22/12/2000
3. Arrest of Accused : Accused are on bail
4. Name of the complainant : Source information
5. Date of recording of Evidence : 09/04/2021
6. Date of closing Evidence : 25/06/2025
7. Offences complained of : Sections 417, 420, 468,
471 of IPC r/w Section
120B of IPC and also
for the offence under
Section 13(2) r/w
Section 13(1) (d) of
Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
8. Opinion of the Judge : As per the final order
SATISH Digitally signed
by SATISH BALI
BALI Date: 2025.12.23
17:21:05 +0530
(Satish J. Bali)
XLVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge and Judge for CBI Cases,
Bengaluru (CCH-48)
JUDGMENT
4 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 On the basis of the source information, the Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB, Bengaluru filed the charge-sheet against the Accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 417, 420, 468, 471 of IPC r/w Section 120B of IPC and also for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is as under:
The Accused no.1 was chairman of National Council for Teachers Education, Head Quarters, New Delhi(COUNCIL), the Accused no.2 was Secretary of Dr. Radha Krishna teachers institution, Devanahalli, Bengaluru (Dr RTEI) at the time of commission of alleged offences. The Accused no.3 is the member of National Council for Teachers Education, South Regional Committee, Bengaluru(NCTE SRC) The Accused no.4 was the Principal, Cheema College of Education, Kishankot, Near Ghuman, Amritsar. The 5 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Accused no.5 was retired Professor of State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT), New Delhi.
It is the specific case of the prosecution that the Accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy in the matter for securing recognition for Dr.RTEI, Devanahalli, Bengaluru for conducting B.Ed.,/ C.P.Ed.,/ D.Ed.,/ courses run by the Accused no.2.
In furtherance of the said conspiracy, the Accused no.2 had submitted an application on 29/12/2003 seeking for recognition from National Council for Teachers Education, Southern Regional Committee, SRC, Bengaluru along with three fake Fixed Deposit for Rs.15,00,000/- purportedly issued by M/s Karagadamma Co-operative Bank Ltd., Basaveshwarnagar, Bengaluru. In response to the said application, the National Council for Teachers Education, Southern Regional Committee, Bangalore addressed a letter on 29/6/2004 calling upon the accused no.2 to comply the requirements pertaining 6 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 to the Land documents, Application fee and Fixed Deposit for Rs.5,00,000/-. On 12/7/2004, the Accused no.2 submitted reply along with land documents and FD receipts for Rs. 5,00,000/- drawn on M/s Karagadamma Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bangalore which are alleged to be fake. On 3/12/2004, the National Council for Teachers Education, SRC, Bengaluru rejected the application of Accused no.2 for the academic year 2004-05. As against the said order, the Accused no.2 preferred three Appeals before the Appellate Authority, National Council for Teachers Education Head Quarters, New Delhi,.
It is further case of the prosecution that as per the directions of the Appellate Authority, NCTE Head Office, New Delhi, the NCTE, SRC Bengaluru constituted Inspection Team which submitted it's report after visit to the institution of Accused no 2 identifying various deficiencies in physical as well as educational infrastructure. The said report was 7 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 placed before NCTE, SRC, Bengaluru which issued notice to the Accused no.2 seeking for compliance of the deficiencies. The Accused no.2 submitted a detailed reply and an inspection team consisting of Prof. S.N. Prasad and Dr. PSS Sastry was constituted which carried out inspection of the institution of the Accused no.2 and submitted the report identifying the various shortcomings in physical as well as educational infrastructure of the institution. The said application was rejected and again Accused no.2 preferred three Appeals before the Appellate Authority, National Council for Teachers Education, New Delhi challenging the order dated 18/10/2005.
The Appellate Authority constituted a sub-committee consisting of Sri Mohammed Ahmed Siddiqui and 2 others which visited the institution of the Accused no.2 and submitted report on 29/11/2005 identifying the various shortcomings in physical as well as educational infrastructure in the institution.
The Member Secretary of the Appellate Authority had 8 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 placed said report before the Accused no.1 who was a public servant recommending for rejection of the Appeals preferred by the Accused no.2. In the meeting of the Appellate Authority, the Appeals filed by the Accused no.2 came to be rejected vide minutes of the meeting dated 4/1/2006 which are signed by the Accused no.1 as a Chairman of Appellate Authority, National Council for Teachers Education, New Delhi. It is specifically alleged that when files relating to the institution of the Accused no.2 were placed before the Accused no.1 for forwarding the same to the Chairman of National Council for Teachers Education, New Delhi for ratification of the decision, he taken contradictory stand on the issue decided in the meeting of the Appellate Authority.
Meanwhile, on 27/1/2006, Dr.Shardindu, Chairman of National Council for Teachers Education, New Delhi was repatriated to his parent cadre and Accused no.1 took charge as a Chairman of National Council for Teachers Education, New Delhi to whom 9 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 the Appeal files relating to the institution of the Accused no.2 were submitted, who on 21/2/2006 ordered for de nova hearing of the appeals and had constituted visiting team consisting of Accused no.3 to 5 who were also public servants to cause inspection of the institution of the Accused no.2 situated at Devanahalli, Bengaluru. It is specifically alleged that the Accused no.1 had obtained favourable report from the inspection team consisting of Accused no.3 to 5 and decided the Appeal in favour of the Accused no.2 - institution. It is alleged that the Accused persons in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy managed to got obtain the recognition of D.Ed., course of the institution of the Accused no.2 even though the earlier three inspecting committees have submitted report notifying the physical as well as educational shortcomings in the institution of the Accused no.2.
It is also alleged that the Accused no.2 got admitted 50 students for D.Ed., course in Tamil medium for 10 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Academic year 2004-05 and 2005-06 without obtaining the approval from the National Council for Teachers Education, Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru and Department of State Education Research and Training, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru, and Accused no.2 had also got admitted 50 students for D.Ed., course for the academic year 2006-07 and had collected an amount between Rs.
50,000/- to Rs.1,10,000/- as a donation/ fees from them. It is also alleged that Accused no.2 had fraudulently submitted a list of six faculty members to the Director, Department of State Educational Research and Training, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru without employing them, and he had fraudulently prepared an attendance registers showing said six persons as members of the faculty of his institution, and thereby the Accused no 1,3 to 5 committed an offence punishable under section 13(2) R/W sec 13 (1) (d) of prevention of corruption Act, 1988 and Accused no 2 committed offences 11 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 punishable under section 417,420,468,471 of IPC R/w SEC 120(B) 0F IPC .
3. After submitting charge-sheet, as there were sufficient materials in order to proceed against the Accused persons, the cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 468, 471 r/w Section 120B of IPC and also for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 was taken. The Accused persons in response to the summons appeared before the Court through their respective counsels and enlarged on bail.
4. The prosecution papers were supplied to all the Accused persons in compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. As there were sufficient materials to frame the charge as against the Accused persons, this court had framed the charges for the aforesaid offences and read over the same to the Accused persons in the language known to them. The Accused persons 12 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 by understanding the same did not plead guilty and claims to be tried.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has got examined in all 46 witnesses as PWs. 1 to 46 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P139 and closed its side.
6. The incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution was read over and explained to all the Accused persons in the language known to them in compliance of Section 313(1) (B) of Cr.P.C., The Accused persons denied the incriminating materials appearing in the evidence of the prosecution against them and their answers and explanations is recorded. The Accused no.2 only chosen to lead his evidence.
7. The Accused no.2 examined himself as DW.1 and got marked 9 documents at Ex.D1 to Ex.D9 and closed his side.
8. Heard the Arguments of Learned Public Prosecutor as well as respective counsels for Accused persons and perused the materials.
13 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
9. The Learned counsel for Accused No 2 as well as Learned Public Prosecutor filed written synopsis which is perused by this court.
10. The Learned counsel for the Accused no.1 pressed into service following decisions in support of his arguments.
i) 2025 STPL 3075 SC between C.Kamalakkannan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu.
ii) 2023 STPL 9784 SC between A.Sreenivasa Reddy Vs. Rakesh Sharma and another.
iii) 2023 STPL 7938 SC between
A.Srinivasulu Vs. State represented by the
Inspector of Police.
iv) 2025 STPL 1083 SC between Dinesh
Kumar Mathur Vs. State of M.P. and others.
11. The following points arises for my consideration:
1. Whether sanction is required to prosecute the accused no.1, 3 to 5?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused no.1, while functioning as a 14 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 public servant in the capacity of the then Chairman of M/s National Council for Teachers Education, Headquarters, New Delhi, Accused no.3 while functioning as public servant in the capacity of Member of M/s National Council for Teachers Education, Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru, Accused no.3 while functioning as a public servant in the capacity of Dean, Department of Education, Gurunanakdev University, Amritsar, Punjab, and Accused no.5 while functioning as public servant in the capacity of Officer, State Council for Educational Research and Training, New Delhi, during the year 2006, Accused no.1 constituted inspection committee consisting of Accused no.3 to 5 with an intention to do an illegal act, to wit in the matter of securing recognition for D.Ed., course in favour of Accused no.2's Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution, Devanahalli, 15 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Bengaluru entered into criminal conspiracy by the accused no.1 with other Accused persons and thereby have committed the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC?
3. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that Accused no.1 and Accused no.3 to 5 while functioning as a public servants in the aforesaid position and Accused no.3 to 5 being members of inspection team constituted by Accused no.1, during the year 2006 misused their respective official position and the Accused no.3 to 5 had fraudulently submitted inspection report recommending for according sanction for D.Ed., course to Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution, Devanahalli, Bengaluru run by Accused no.2, though the said institution was not having necessary physical, educational infrastructure for starting D.Ed., course and Accused 16 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 no.1 obtained favourable report from the inspection team consisting of Accused no.3 to 5 and accorded permission in gross violation of rules, regulations of National Council for Teachers' Education Act, 1993, and thereby Accused no.1 and 3 to 5 committed offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, Accused no.1 and Accused no.3 to 5 while acting as a public servants in the aforesaid position and Accused no.3 to 5 being members of inspection committee constituted by Accused no.1 hatched criminal conspiracy though the earlier three committees submitted report identifying inadequacies in physical / educational infrastructure of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution, Devanahalli, Bengaluru for running 17 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 B.Ed., / D.Ed., /C.P.Ed., courses, the Accused no.1 fraudulently constituted the above said three members team consisting of Accused no.3 to 5 in violation of procedures laid down in National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 and ordered for denova hearing of appeals filed by Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution, Devanahalli, Bengaluru and initialed a note and appointed 4th inspection team consisting of Accused no.3 to 5 with and intention to obtain favourable report from the said team and decided the appeals filed by Accused no.2 against the orders of M/s National Council for Teachers Education, Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru in favour of Accused no.2, for running D.Ed., Course and thereby the Accused no.1 deceived M/s National Council for Teachers Education, Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru and 18 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 corresponding gain to Accused no.2 and thereby the Accused no.1, 3 to 5 committed the offence punishable under Section 417 r/w Section 120-
B of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that Accused no.2 in the capacity of Secretary of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution, Devanahalli, Bengaluru in pursuance of criminal conspiracy got admitted 50 students for D.Ed., course in Tamil medium for the academic year 2004-05 and 2005-06 in his above said institution without obtaining approval form M/s National Council for Teachers Education, Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru and the Department of State Education Research and Training, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru and further got admitted 50 students to D.Ed., course for the academic year 2006-07 in the above said 19 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 institution and had collected fees / donations between the amount Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- from the students without conducting regular classes resulting in creation of class of D.Ed scholars without adequate knowledge or skill and thereby cheated the students, general public and competent authorities, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 120-B of IPC?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that Accused no.2 in the capacity of Secretary of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution, Devanahalli, Bengaluru in pursuance of criminal conspiracy forged certain documents viz., three fake fixed deposit receipts of Rs.15 lakh, purported to have been issued by M/s Karagadamma Co-operative Bank Ltd., Yelahanka Branch, Bengaluru when no such bank was in existence and two fixed deposit 20 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 receipts purported to have been issued by Indian Bank, Ulsoor Branch, to wit, intending that it shall be used for the purpose of cheating M/s National Council for Teachers Education, Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru without their knowledge and consent and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 468 r/w Section 120-B of IPC?
7. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused no.2 in the capacity of Secretary of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution, Devanahalli, Bengaluru, in pursuance of above said conspiracy, fraudulently or dishonestly used the documents viz., three fake fixed deposit receipts of RS.15 lakhs as genuine, purported to have been issued by M/s Karagadamma Co-
operative Bank Ltd., Yelahanka Branch, Bengaluru, and two fixed deposit receipts purported to have 21 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 been issued by Indian Bank, Ulsoor Branch and said Fixed Deposits came to be adjusted against loan account of accused no.2, thereby alienated the security given to M/s National Council for Teachers Education, Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru and the Accused no.2 with dishonest intention since from inception, submitted the applications seeking for recognition for D.Ed., B.Ed., and C.P.Ed., courses to the Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru of National Council for Teachers Education along with the above said forged FD receipts for the purpose of obtaining recognition for his above said institution and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 471 r/w Section 120-B of IPC?
8. What Order ?
22 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
12. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative;
Point No.2: In the Affirmative;
Point No.3: In the Affirmative;
Point No.4: In the Affirmative;
Point No.5: In the Affirmative;
Point No.6: In the Affirmative;
Point No.7: In the Affirmative;
Point No.8: As per final order; for the
following:
REASONS
POINT NO.5 TO 7: Since the above said points are inter-linked, they are taken up together for common discussion.
13. The Learned counsel for the Accused no.1 during the course of arguments submitted that the Accused no.1 was Vice-Chair person of National Council for Teachers Education, New Delhi upto 27/1/2066 and became Chairman of the said institution from 27/1/2006 as Dr.Shardindu who was chairman of National Council for Teachers Education was repatriated to his parent 23 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 cadre. It is submitted that there was an administrative dispute between Dr.Shardindu and Accused no.1 and as such people against Accused no.1 hatched conspiracy to fix him only in order to degrade his image. It is also canvassed that the accused no.1 as a chair person of National Council for Teachers Education, New Delhi had every authority to order for de nova hearing of appeals preferred by the accused no.2 and there is a protection in respect of acts done by him in good faith under Section 28 of the NCTE Act.
14. The Learned counsel also canvassed that the prosecution has not produced the authorization to Investigating Officer to investigate into the matter. It is submitted that the permission to Investigating Officer to investigate into the matter by the State Government is necessary as per Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is submitted that CW.46 who was Investigating Officer not of the Dy.S.P. rank as contemplated under Section 17 of 24 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 the Prevention of Corruption Act, and prosecution has not placed on record any authorization authorizing CW.46 to conduct the investigation. It is submitted that prosecution has also not obtained necessary sanction as against accused no.1, and he being Chairman of Appellate Authority can order for de nova hearing of appeals preferred by the accused no.2, as such the said order is not in contravention of provisions of NCTE Act.
15. It is also submitted that accused no.1 has not taken any role in approval of D.Ed., course to the institution of accused no.2 and it is Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru which has got ultimate authority to take decision. It is also submitted that the accused no.1 is no way concerned with the admission of students in Tamil medium for D.Ed., course in the institution of accused no.2. It is also submitted that the accused no.1 within his power and within his authority acted properly and the orders passed by him are within his 25 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 discretion. It is submitted that the panchanama has to be conducted in the presence of local persons and by taking this court to the evidence of PW.1, PW.4, PW.34 to PW.36 and PW.46 submitted that the prosecution has not made out its case as alleged in the charge-sheet as against the accused no.1. Therefore, the accused no.1 is entitled for acquittal. It is also submitted that the accused no.1 in his personal capacity has not acted in favour of accused no.2 to grant recognition for D.Ed., course, and whatever acts done by him are protected under Section 28 of NCTE Act and Rules as such, no fault can be found with the acts of the accused no.1 and thereby prayed to acquit him.
16. The Learned counsel for the accused no.3 submitted that the accused no.3 was member of Southern Regional Committee, NCTE, Bengaluru from 30/04/2006 to 30/4/2008 and accused no.4 and 5 are of different State. Hence, there is no chance of conspiracy between accused no.3 to 5. It is 26 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 also submitted that the prosecution has not obtained sanction from competent authority so as to proceed against the accused no.3 and at relevant point of time, he was member of Southern Regional Committee, NCTE, Bengaluru. It is also submitted that the report of inspection committee was submitted by accused no.3 to 5 recommending for recognition for D.Ed., course run by accused no.2 by inspecting the institution and by noting down the facts which were existed there. It is submitted that the accused no.3 being member of inspecting committee had visited the institution of the accused no.2 and by noting the infrastructural facilities available in the said institution submitted report along with accused no.4 and 5 recommending for grant of recognition for D.Ed., course. Hence, there is no overtact on behalf of the accused no.3, as such prayed to acquit him.
17. The Learned counsel for the Accused no.4 and 5 submitted that the Accused no.3 to 5 came 27 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 into play on 5/6/2006 when accused no.1 constituted committee consisting of them to inspect the institution of the accused no.2 and once they have submitted their report, their role come to an end. It is submitted that accused no.3 to 5 are from different part of the country and not belonging to one institution, as such the question of conspiracy between them does not arise at all. It is submitted that the prosecution has to demonstrate the meeting of minds of accused no.3 to 5 in hatching conspiracy among them. The Learned counsel by taking this court to various provisions of NCTE Act such as Section 13 to 19 and it's Rules and Regulations submitted that the council may constitute a committee of such person as it may deems fit and accused no.1 alone is not a council. It is submitted that all members of the council should be arrayed as an accused which took collective decision to cause inspection of the institution of accused no.2 and based upon the said report accorded recognition for 28 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 D.Ed., course. It is submitted that accused no.1 has not passed any orders constituting inspecting committee consisting of accused no.3 to 5 and if really there was conspiracy between accused no.1, 3 to 5, the inspecting committee consisting of accused no.3 to 5 submitted their report after gap of 20-25 days but they have submitted their report on the very next day of visit. It is submitted that the committee consisting of accused no.3 to 5 recommending for recognition for D.Ed., course only and if really there was conspiracy they ought to have recommended for recognition for all the courses applied by the accused no.2. It is also submitted that the authority to grant sanction rests only with Southern Regional Committee and the council has no role to play in according the recognisation. It is submitted that since the council has taken decision to accord recognition for D.Ed., course all the members of the council should be arrayed as an accused. It is also canvassed that Second Inspection 29 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Committee recommended for D.Ed., course and accused no.3 to 5 are not part of council and once they submitted their report, their task is over. It is also submitted that council has passed order to constitute the committee consisting of accused no.3 to 5 and not by accused no.1 only. The Learned counsel by taking this court to the oral evidence of PW.44 to PW.46 submitted that the prosecution has not placed any material to demonstrate that there was a criminal conspiracy between accused no.3 to 5, as such failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and thereby prayed to acquit the accused no.4 and 5.
18. Since the Learned Public Prosecutor and Learned counsel for the accused no.2 filed their written arguments, it is not necessary to reproduce the arguments canvassed by them.
19. Before adumbrating to the factual aspects of the case, the facts in narrow compass is that the accused no.2 being the Secretary of the Dr. 30 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution, Devanahalli applied for recognition for 3 courses D.Ed., B.Ed., and C.P.Ed., before the Southern Regional Committee of National Council for Teachers Education, Bengaluru which rejected the same and preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority of National Council for Teachers Education Head Office, New Delhi of which accused no.1 was Chairman and accused persons hatched conspiracy in securing recognition to the courses offered by accused no.2 by abusing their official position particularly accused no.1, 3 to 5 who were public servants at the time of commission of the alleged offence. It is also case of the prosecution that the accused no.2 for obtaining recognition for the courses has forged documents such as FD receipts and attendance register and moved an application with fabricated documents and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 of IPC r/w Section 120-B of IPC. It is 31 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 also the specific case of the prosecution that accused no.1, 3 to 5 have grossly misused their respective official positions and committed criminal misconduct attracting the provisions of Section 13(1)
(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 417 r/w Section 120-B of IPC. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused no.1 constituted Visiting Committee consisting of accused no.3 to 5 who gave favourable report in favour of the institution of the accused no.2 and thereby accused persons hatched conspiracy in securing recognition for the institution of the accused no.2.
20. To substantiate the above said allegations, the evidence which has been led before the court by the prosecution is also to be looked into.
21. The case came to be registered on the basis of the source information as against the accused persons. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined as many as 46 witnesses as 32 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 PWs. 1 to 46 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.139.
22. PWs. 1 and 2 are members of the Inspection Committee who inspected the institution of the accused no.2 i.e., Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution, Devanahalli, Bengaluru on 14/6/2005 and 2/9/2005 respectively and submitted report noting various deficiencies in infrastructure, institutional and other facilities and recommended for rejection of recognition. They have deposed in their evidence as to conducting inspection at the institution of the accused no.2 as per the directions of South Regional Committee, National Council for Teachers Education, Bengaluru. They have also deposed as to submitting report of their inspection. Through PW.1, the prosecution has got marked the intimation of inspection issued to him as Ex.P1 and report submitted by him as per Ex.P2. He deposed that along with him, another person by name Prof. Kelu, 33 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Head of the Department of Education, Calicut University was also present and identified his signature appearing on the report as per Ex.P2 (f) to
(i).
23. PW.2 - Dr.S.N. Prasad, Retired Principal of Regional College of Education, Mysore has deposed that on 2/9/2005, he along with Dr. P.S.S.Sastry inspected Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution and by noting down the infrastructure facilities submitted a report as per Ex.P4. He identified the letter from NCTE office requesting him to inspect the institution as Ex.P3. In the cross-examination, PW.1 has stood to the case of the prosecution by deposing that they visited the institution of accused no.2 and also submission of report as per Ex.P2. He deposed that before submitting report, he has made rough note of inspection and same was reproduced in the format prescribed under the NCTE Act. PW.1 has further deposed that in the year 2006, he was appointed as 34 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 a member of Southern Regional Committee, at that time, the subject as to recognition to the institution of the accused no.2 came up for consideration, but on several occasions, same was deferred for one or the other reason and in 116th meeting in his absence recognition was accorded to the institution and in next meeting, the minutes were approved by passing a resolution to the effect that he and other 3 members were not parties to the said resolution. It has been elicited from the mouth of PW.1 that he knows requirements to be followed to run different courses in educational institution and there is a separate format for different courses to be followed. PW.1 deposed that the information which was not available in the spot has been left out in Ex.P2 report. Further, PW.1 in the cross-examination conducted by accused no.2 stated that as per Ex.P1, they have to make inspection with regard to the 3 courses and after inspection, they verified all the programs as per schedule inspection and recorded 35 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 the same in inspection report in his own handwriting. He stated that at the time of inspection, the school was functioning in the building and denied a suggestion that there was complete building at the time of inspection. PW.1 subsequently deposed in his cross-examination that there was no separate laboratory, class room and library to the institution and same were used in school building. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited from the mouth of PW.1 which falsifies the conduct of inspection by him.
24. PW.2 in his cross-examination has deposed that during inspection, he submitted Ex.P4 report only with respect to D.Ed., courses by filing proforma given by NCTE and returned two booklets in blank. He failed to state the name of the lady who was present in the institution during the inspection. PW.2 further stated that the report was prepared after inspection before leaving the institution. To a question that there was no difficulty to make 36 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 videograph or to take photographs about the availability of the infrastructure in the institution, PW.2 stated that there was no such requirement. He denied a suggestion that during inspection, planned building was completely constructed and there was adequate infrastructure. He also denied suggestion that the instructional facilities were also fully developed as per requirements. He deposed that on behalf of the Secretary of the institution, one person signed the report and at the time of inspection, a lady representing the Government was also present and as there was no requirement to obtain her signature on the report same has not been obtained. He denied a suggestion that Ex.P4 report was not signed by Mr. Hiremath on behalf of the institution. The perusal of the above said cross-examination of PW.2 also makes it very clear that nothing worthwhile has been elicited from the mouth of this witness to falsify the conduct of inspection as well as submitting report as per Ex.P4. When the report 37 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 submitted by PWs.1 and 2 are carefully perused as per Ex.P2 and Ex.P4, it is quite clear that there were various deficiencies in infrastructure of the institution of the accused no.2 to run the courses. It is also pertinent to note that the counsel for the accused no.2 made a suggestion that the signature of accused no.2 to Ex.P2 report was obtained in the office of PW.1. The said suggestion makes it very clear that accused no.2 has signed to the report Ex.P2. PW.1 in the cross-examination at page no.11 has specifically stated that at the time of inspection, the accused no.2 was present. This evidence makes it very clear that in the presence of Accused no.2, PW.1 along with Prof. Kelu conducted physical verification of the institution.
25. The prosecution has also got examined one Dr.R. Nagaraj s/o Rajagopalarao as PW.3 who was assistant in NCTE,SRC Bengalurtu and later promoted as a Section Officer. He identified two seizure memo under which he has produced certain 38 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 documents pertaining to NCTE as per Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. Through him, the entire file pertaining to the Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution was got marked as Ex.P7. He has deposed as to the submission of the application by the institution seeking for recognition along with required documents as per Ex.P8, and the process of the said application. He has also deposed that on receipt of the application, the Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru has written deficiency letter to the institution as per Ex.P11, and a noting was made in this regard in Ex.P12 which is minutes of the proceedings. He has also deposed that in reply to the said deficiency letter, the institution has written compliance letter as per Ex.P13. He deposed that meanwhile, a complaint against the institution was came to be received from B.V.Ramachandrareddy, Ex-MLA complaining that Secretary of the institution has submitted fake documents such as FD receipts, plans and got marked the said 39 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 complaint as per Ex.P14. Further, through this witness, the letter dated 3/12/2014 addressed by Regional Director of Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru stating that the application received without NOC is an incomplete and same will be processed for the session 2005-06 marked as Ex.P15. Against the said order, the Secretary of the institution filed Appeal before Council, New Delhi along with covering letter as per Ex.P16 and Ex.P17. He further deposed that as sought by the Council, New Delhi, Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru has sent para-wise comments in respect of the appeal filed by the accused no.2 as per Ex.P18. He further deposed that Council on the appeal filed by the accused no.2 remanded the matter to the Southern Regional Committee to reconsider the application with the direction to cause inspection of the institution as per Ex.19. He further deposed that in compliance of the said direction, Southern Regional Committee has constituted committee 40 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 consisting of PW.1 - Sri Ramesh Ghata and Prof. Kelu as members of Inspection Team and identified intimation of the said visit to the said members as per Ex.P1 and Ex.P20, and also intimation issued to the institution as per Ex.P21. He further deposed that the said Inspection Team conducted the inspection of the institution on 14/6/2005 and submitted report which has been placed in 93 rd meeting of the Southern Regional Committee and minutes were drawn based upon the said report. It is submitted that as per the resolution, a show-cause notice was issued to the institution pointing out deficiencies mentioned in the report and further deposed that the SRC has taken action against the said institution for submitting fake FD receipts and lodging of complaint before Jalahalli Police Station. He got marked the minutes of the meeting and letters as per Ex.P22 to Ex.P24. He further deposed that on 20/9/2005, the Secretary of the institution submitted a letter along with copy of FD receipts of 41 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Rs.15,00,00/- and Rs.9,00,000/- respectively of Indian Bank and identified the said letter as Ex.P25, and FIR lodged before the Jalahalli police, Bengaluru as per Ex.P26. He further deposed that on 20/02/2006, the Southern Regional Committee office received letter from Council regarding FDRs submitted by the institution and said letter is marked as Ex.P27 and reply to it as Ex.P28. He further deposed that after receipt of the inspection report, same was placed before the Southern Regional Committee and the institution has given reply to show-cause notice and got marked the entire file as Ex.P29 pertaining to the institution. The reply issued by the institution is got marked as per Ex.P30 and said reply was placed before Southern Regional Committee who decided to send one more Inspection Team to verify the compliance. He identified the minutes of the said meeting as per Ex.P31 and also signature of the Chairman as per Ex.P31(a). He further deposed that as per the 42 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 minutes of the meeting at Ex.P31, Inspection Team consisting of S.N. Prasad and Dr. P.S.S.Sastry was constituted to whom intimation was issued as per Ex.P3. He further deposed that said Inspection Team after visit to the institution submitted its report which was placed before the Southern Regional Committee and identified the said report as Ex.P4. He further deposed that based on the said Inspection Report Committee it was decided to refuse recognition and in this regard got marked the minutes of the meeting as per Ex.P31 and the decision of Southern Regional Committee was communicated to the institution as per Ex.P33.
26. PW.3 further deposed that as against the said order of Southern Regional Committee Ex.P32, the institution preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, NCTE, New Delhi which has sought para-wise remarks. He further deposed that Southern Regional Committee has sent original file along with para-wise remarks to the NCTE. PW.3 43 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 further identified notes in respect of receipt of order from Appellate Authority as per Ex.P35 which was placed before the Southern Regional Committee. He further deposed that the Southern Regional Committee deferred in taking decision on the appellate order for want of additional documents in its 112th meeting and again matter was placed in next meeting. He got identified the minutes of the said meeting as per Ex.P36 and the minutes of the 113th meeting as per Ex.P37. He further deposed that the Southern Regional Committee wrote a letter to the NCTE which has sent reply stating to take action in accordance with law. He further deposed as to the issuance of recognition of D.Ed., course for the academic year 2006-07 as per order dated 31/08/2006 marked as Ex.P38 and minutes of the 116th meeting got marked as Ex.P40. Further, he identified the accused no.2 before this court who used to appear in the office of Southern Regional Committee for submission of documents. 44 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
27. The above said evidence of PW.3 reveals the entire process of considering the application of the institution seeking for recognition, constitution of two Inspection Committees, submission of report by the said Committees and also refusal of recognition based on the said reports and filing appeal by the institution as against the order of refusal of recognition. The evidence of PW.3 also reveals that finally recognition was granted to the institution to run D.Ed., course for the year 2006-
07.
28. In the cross-examination of accused no.1, it has been elicited as to procedure followed for disposal of the application, disposal of the appeal and the entire process connected therewith. PW.3 has deposed that he made notes on the basis of the documents, reports and committee decisions. Though it has been elicited from the mouth of this witness that on Ex.P1, Ex.P11, Ex.P13 to Ex.P17, his signature is not appearing, but he being Section 45 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Officer is acquainted with process of dealing with the application as well as the appeal. In the cross- examination of accused no.2, it has been elicited from the mouth of this witness that the application seeking for recognition was accompanied by a letter of Secretary of the institution and as per the NCTE regulations, institution must possess its own land to establish the institution. He denied a suggestion that on the basis of the complaint of All India Teachers Federation College Okkuta (ಒಕ್ಕೂ ಟ), the CBI conducted raid on the office of NCTE and he was suspended from NCTE because of which he is deposing in favour of the complainant. PW.3 further deposed that the FD receipt of Rs.5,00,000/- given by the institution was fake and same was handed over to the Jalahalli Police in a criminal case. On careful perusal of the notes as per Ex.P12, it is quite clear that in reply to the requisition of Jalahalli Police, the original 3 FD receipts of Rs.5,00,000/- each were handed over to the said police for 46 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 investigation purpose. The careful perusal of Ex.P12 also makes it very clear that in a meeting of Southern Regional Committee, the Second Inspection Committee was constituted and based on the report of the said Committee, recognition was refused against which the institution preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The minutes of the 116th meeting of Southern Regional Committee makes it very clear that as per order dated 12/06/2006 of NCTE, New Delhi, recognition was accorded for D.Ed., course.
29. The prosecution has also got examined one of the member of Third Inspection Committee Sri Mohd. Akhtar Siddiqui, a Retired Professor of Jamiya Milia Islamia, New Delhi who has deposed that as per Ex.P42 intimation letter, he was asked to cause inspection of the institution of accused no.2 and accordingly on 17/11/2005, he himself along with Prof. M.C. Sharma and Dr. S.S.Rathi conducted inspection and came to know that the said 47 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 institution was run by Vishwanatha Vidya Samste. He deposed that at the time of conducting the inspection, the Secretary of the said samste was present and after verification of the papers, they found that there were no journal books for teachers education. He further deposed that on conducting survey of the campus, it was found that there were only two rooms and no sufficient infrastructure such as play ground, science lab were not found. He further deposed that teachers list was not produced though a letter has been shown stating that teachers of the institution have been deputed for evaluation but no proof was produced. He further deposed that there were no records regarding salary and qualification details of the faculty members and no students were found in the campus and they were told that students have gone for practicals. He further deposed that during inspection of papers, he found 3 pamphlets pertaining to the institution of the accused no.2 in which an advertisement has 48 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 been given as to starting of courses in Kannada, Tamil and English languages. Said pamphlets were got marked as Ex.P43 and Ex.P44 and the note made by the accused no.2 on one of the pamphlet is marked as Ex.P43(a). This witness has further deposed that the accused no.2 failed to produce NCTE Order which was mentioned in the pamphlets and also the order of the State Government. He further deposed that the building was under
construction at initial stage. In one of the room they saw blackboard bearing No.1 to 100 which made them to come to conclusion that said rooms were used for running the school and not for the purpose of college. He deposed that there was no toilet facility and on verifying records as well as physical inspection, they opined that institution of the accused no.2 is not at all prepared to run any educational courses and submitted report as per Ex.P45. He further deposed that on 18/11/2005, when they were returning to Delhi from Bengaluru 49 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Airport, accused no.2 approached him with an envelope by offering Rs.50,000/- as travelling expenses which has been refused on the ground that TA/DA was paid by NCTE. He deposed as to the advertisement in pamphlets as per Ex.P43 and Ex.P44 and also as to the NCTE order.
30. PW.4 further deposed that he worked as a Chairman in NCTE during 2008 to 2011, and regarding routine inspection, the Regional Committee will order to make inspection and in case any doubt with regard to the some facts, the Appeal Committee would recommend to make an inspection in exceptional cases only. He further deposed that on the basis of the Expert Committee Report, the Appeal Committee would verify the facts and disposes the appeal. He further deposed that there are no rules and regulations regarding nominating the Inspection Committee or Expert Committee by the Appellate Committee. He identified the accused no.2 before the court.
50 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
31. In the cross-examination of learned counsel for the accused no.1 nowhere it is suggested that this witness has not visited the institution for the purpose of conducting inspection and also as to the submission of report as per Ex.P42. Further, this witness has stated that in the year 2005, the post of Chairman, NCTE was vacant and during the said period, Vice-chairman was incharge of the said post. It has been elicited from the mouth of this witness that Vice-chairman was the Chairman of the Appeal Committee and during the inspection of the institution, Mr. Shardindu was not the Chairman of the NCTE.
32. Further, PW.4 in the cross-examination conducted by learned counsel for the accused no.2 has deposed that when they visited the institution, the accused no.2 himself introduced as its Secretary, as such they did not ask for his ID proof. Further, it has been elicited that during the inspection, he made rough note regarding inspection and he has 51 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 produced the said rough note with the report. He specifically stated that the rough notes were prepared on the backside of the pamphlet, and accused no.2 has admitted his signature on the said pamphlet at Ex.P43. When Ex.P43 is carefully perused, it is quite clear that this witness at the time of inspection of the institution has made rough notes and same has been incorporated in the report at Ex.P45. The suggestions to the effect that at the time of inspection, there were 4 floors with all infrastructures to run Teachers' Education Courses is denied by the witness. From perusal of the entire evidence of this witness, court can come to the conclusion that this witness has stood in the cross- examination and nothing worthwhile has been elicited from the mouth of this witness which will falsify the visit to the institution of the accused no.2 and submission of report as per Ex P45.
33. The prosecution has also got examined PW.5 to PW.8 who were Lecturers in Rural Teachers' 52 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Training Institution, Devanahalli. They have deposed that they worked as Lecturer in Rural Teachers' Training Institution, Devanahalli and knows accused no.2 and identified him before the court. PW.5 specifically stated that he met accused no.2 through his colleague Mr. Ramaswamy during the year 2006- 07, and both of them asked him to work in the institution which has been refused. He stated that, he never worked in the institution and only at one occasion, he visited the institution for the purpose of inspection and he handed over xerox copies of his marks cards to the accused no.2. He specifically stated that during the year 2004-05, he went to the institution to attend inspection and during that time, the accused no.2 has not informed anything. He stated that as his colleague Ramaswamy called him to come to the institution during inspection, as such he went to the institution. Through this witness, the attendance registers of Rural Teachers' Training Institution for the year 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 53 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 marked as Ex.P46 to Ex.P48 and also the salary extracts from the year 2006-08 are marked as Ex.P49 to Ex.P51. This witness has identified the attendance register of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution as Ex.P52 and identified his name at sl.no.7 in page no.15 to 17 but denied that he signed to the said attendance register and the signature appearing in front of his name in the said attendance register does not belonged to him. The provisional appointment statement of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution is got marked through this witness as Ex.P53 and he admitted the details made in Ex.P53 as belonging to him and also identified his photo appearing in the same.
34. PW.6 also deposed in line with PW.5 and he got marked attested copies of his marks card and certificate as per Ex.P29(a) to Ex.P29(d). Further, this witness has deposed that as accused no.2 intended to start Teachers Training College for 54 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 D.Ed., course, he was in search of teachers, as such he sought for his resume with photostat copies of qualification certificate with photographs and accordingly he has handed over the same. He has further deposed that in provisional appointment statement, his photo is appearing and he signed on the photo. He further identified his signature appearing in the attendance register of Rural Teachers' Training Institution as per Ex.P46(b) to Ex.P48(b). With respect to the attendance register of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution Ex.P52, this witness has deposed that his name finds at sl.no.6, but denied his signatures appearing in front of his name.
35. PW.7 has also deposed that as per the request of accused no.2, he has handed over the educational qualification certificates, photographs to him and identified the same as per Ex.P29(e). He has also identified his signature appearing on the provisional appointment statement at Ex.P52 and 55 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 also his signature appearing on the attendance registers of Rural Teachers' Training Institution as per Ex.P46(c) to Ex.P48(c). He also deposed that salary extracts as per Ex.P49 to Ex.P51 discloses his salary particulars. With respect to Ex.P52 attendance register of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution, this witness has stated that though his name appears at sl.no.8, but the signature appearing in front of his name does not belonged to him.
36. In the cross-examination, PW.5 has stated that only on the date of inspection, he went to Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution and by that time, the ground floor as well as first floor was there and second floor was under construction. The accused no.1, 3 to 5 not chosen to cross- examine this witness. PW.6 in his cross-examination conducted by the counsel for accused no.1 has stated that he has handed over xerox copies of his educational qualification documents to 56 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Mr.Ramaswamy. He further stated that when he met accused no.2, he sought for documents as he was searching for good teachers as such he gave application to Ramaswamy. Further, in the cross- examination conducted by the learned counsel for accused no.2, it has been elicited that in the first week of June 2005, he gave documents to Ramaswamy. But, he has not followed as to what happened about his appointment in Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution. A suggestion was denied that he himself has signed to attendance register of institution Ex.P52 and also denied that he worked in both Rural Teachers' Training Institution and Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution. Even in the cross-examination of PW.7, nothing worthwhile has been elicited from the mouth of this witness, and on the other hand, he denied suggestion that he only signed to attendance register of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education 57 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Institution as per Ex.P52 and he also denied that he worked for both RTTI and Dr.RTEI.
37. The prosecution has also got examined another Lecturer who worked in Rural Teachers' Training Institution Ramaswamy as PW.8 who deposed that he knows accused no.2 and one Somashekar introduced him to accused no.2. He deposed that his student Thirumalesh informed that accused no.2 intended to start Teachers Training College for D.Ed., course and he is in search of good teachers, as such he along with PW.5 to PW.7 approached the accused no.2 for job and handed over certificates. He identified all his certificates such as degree certificate marks card as per Ex.P29(f), and deposed that accused no.2 assured him to provide post of Principal in his institution and also identified his signature appearing in Ex.P53. Further, this witness has identified his signature appearing in the attendance register of Rural Teachers' Training Institution as per Ex.P46(d) to 58 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Ex.P48(d) and also identified the receipt memo as per Ex.P54 under which he has furnished documents to the Investigating Officer. This witness has also identified staff attendance register and staff salary details as per Ex.P46 to Ex.P51. This witness was treated partly as hostile as he resiled from his statement and learned Public Prosecutor cross- examined this witness in which he admitted that on 14/6/2005, he visited the institution of accused no.2 when NCTE came up for inspection. In the cross-examination conducted by the accused it has been elicited from the mouth of this witness that NCTE Team did not ask any questions to him and after going through the contents he signed to Ex.P53, and admits that he has attested Ex.P29(a) to
(g) as he was Principal of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution.
38. The prosecution has also got examined Retired Deputy Director for Public Instruction Smt. Malathi.S. as PW.9 who deposed that the 59 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 private institutions which required Eligibility Certificate to run the courses have to submit details of the teachers with their qualifications to the Department of State Education Research and Training (DSERT) and after verification, same will be placed before the NCTE for approval. She further deposed that during the year 2005, the institution of accused no.2 submitted eligibility list of teachers to the Department for approval and identified the seizure memo dated 12/3/2009 as per Ex.P55, Ex.P56 and Eligibility Certificate as per Ex.P57. She identified the letter submitted by Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution seeking for approval as per Ex.P58 and deposed that if the institution want to shift the place of institution from one place to another, it has to take written permission from the NCTE and Government, failing to which it will be considered as an unauthorised. In the cross- examination, conducted by the learned counsel for the accused no.1, nothing worthwhile has been 60 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 elicited and prayer of accused no.2 seeking time to cross-examine this witness has been rejected and accused no.3 to 5 have not chosen to cross-examine this witness.
39. The prosecution has also got examined the Principal of Rural Teachers' Training Institution, Devanahalli as PW.10 who deposed that Venkatesh Gowda, Ramaswamy, Nagaraj and Manjunath were his colleagues and as per the request, he has issued service certificates to them and identified the same as per Ex.P29(e) to (g) and also attendance register book as per Ex.P46 to Ex.P48 and their salary details as per Ex.P49 to Ex.P51. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited from the mouth of this witness to falsify the evidence. The prayer of accused no.2 seeking time to cross-examine this witness is rejected, and cross-examination is taken as nil whereas the accused no.3 to 5 have not chosen to cross-examine this witness.
61 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
40. The prosecution has also got examined Senior Lecturer of District Institute for Education and Training (DIET) as PW11 who deposed that their institution provides training to in-service teachers having various wings. He deposed that if private D.Ed., colleges submits application for allotment of school code to the DIET, they will forward the said application to the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board which will allot school code, if application is in accordance with rules. He deposed that in the year 2007, DIET received application from institution of accused no.2 for approval of school code in Tamil medium and the said application was forwarded to the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board and it was returned for want of Government Order to run the institution in Tamil medium which has been intimated to the Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution and there-afterwards they have not received any reply from it. He identified the 62 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 documents and also receipt memo dated 6/5/2009 as per Ex.P59 and the application submitted by Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution along with its enclosures as per Ex.P60. He identified the receipt memo dated 10/6/2009 along with photostat copy of the Circular as per Ex.P61 and identified his signature as per Ex.P61(a). He further deposed that DIET is the authority to approve the management quota seats for D.Ed., education and in order to get approval of management quota seats, institution has to submit its application along with Government Order, NOC and recognition letter from NCTE.
41. This witness was cross-examined by learned counsel for accused no.2 in which he has stated that the DIET has not received any application from Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution and as per Ex.P60, the application was submitted by Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution which has not been perused by him. He failed to state whether the said 63 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 application was forward to the Board for verification. This witness has denied suggestion that Government Order is not necessary for approval of list of students.
42. The prosecution has also got examined Development Officer of District Institute for Education and Training (DIET), Bengaluru Rural District as PW.12 who has deposed that during the year 2007, their office had received a letter from Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution requesting for issue of college code which has been forwarded to the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board. He further deposed that the Board has sent reply mentioning to confirm the Government Order for Tamil medium of D.Ed., course which has been intimated to the Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution through a letter. He deposed that in response to the said letter, Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution had not submitted the Government Order 64 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 or any reply. He deposed that as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the exams were conducted with a condition not to announce the results until further orders. He further deposed that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka passed a order for release of the results and not to take up further admissions and subsequently an order has been passed permitting the students to take supplementary examination with a condition not to release their results. He further deposed that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka directed the institution not to take admissions for the year 2008-09. He deposed that as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the institution had submitted two documents for verification which after due verification found that one of the document was tampered and another document was found correct which has been sent to the Board. The witness got marked Ex.P60 the application which has been submitted by the institution including the interim 65 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 orders of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. In the cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for accused no.2, this witness has deposed that the application filed by the institution after verification was forwarded to the Board and admitted a suggestion that Board has not issued any school code to the said institution because of which it has to approach Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and as per the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, they permitted the institution to conduct the examination. It is also elicited from the mouth of this witness through a suggestion that the application submitted by the institution for the year 2008-09 was forwarded to the Board and they permitted to conduct the examination for the said year. He feigned his ignorance as to who tampered the documents submitted by the institution and after that two original documents belonged to the two students. The accused no.1, 3 to 5 have not chosen to cross-examine this witness.
66 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
43. The prosecution has also got examined the then Chairman of Southern Regional Committee, NCTE, Bengaluru as PW.13 who deposed that during the year 2003-06 he was the Chairman of Southern Regional Committee, NCTE, Bengaluru and Chairman is the Presiding Officer of SRC to record decision of the Committee. He deposed that during the year 2006, the issue of granting recognition to the D.Ed., course of institution came up before the Committee and resolution was passed as per Ex.P36. He also identified the minutes of 112 th meeting of SRC held on 12/13.06.2006. This witness has also identified the minutes of the meeting held on 6/7.07.2006, minutes of the meeting held on 22/23.08.2006 as per Ex.P40. He further deposed that finally recognition was accorded to the institution to conduct D.Ed., course subject to outcome of the litigation. He deposed that said resolution was passed as per the Appellate Authority order dated 12/06/2006 and the said decision of 67 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 SRC was intimated to the institution and NCTE,Delhi.
44. In the cross-examination, the witness failed to state as to how many times the matter of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution came up for consideration before SRC meeting. He deposed that the matter of considering the recognition was referred to the headquarters and he do not know the details of the Appellate Authority order dated 12/06/2006. It has been elicited that he was not aware whether SRC has passed any order or not in respect of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution prior to 12/06/2006. He feigned his ignorance as to the order of Appellate Authority regarding fresh inspection to Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution and also as to how many times inspection was conducted at the institution. He deposed that the Inspection Team was constituted by SRC. He further identified accused no.1 as he was the Chairman of the SRC 68 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 when this witness joined the SRC and later accused no.1 was transferred to Delhi. It has been elicited from the mouth of this witness that about 8 years back, he red minutes of the meeting at Ex.P36 and Ex.P37 and he was not aware whether there was fresh inspection report of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution when minutes of the meeting as per Ex.P37 was passed.
45. In the cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for the accused no.2, this witness has stated that while conducting the meetings of SRC, the Secretary of the Committee will make necessary notes of the points and based upon the same, minutes will be prepared. He admitted that at the time of passing the resolution as per Ex.P36, the Secretary of SRC was not present and during that time, he had not gone through the report submitted by the Visiting Team.
46. The prosecution has also got examined Smt.Leelavathi who did her D.Ed., course at Dr. 69 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution during the year 2008 as PW.14. She deposed that through one Mr. Jayaram she got admission to the D.Ed., course in the institution who was teaching Tamil language in the institution. She deposed that in total she had paid Rs.60,000/- for admission and she has also paid Rs.1,600/- every month for food and accommodation, but institution has not issued any receipt for any payment. She deposed that she joined D.Ed., course in Tamil medium and at that time, Mr.Jayaram, Suresh, Prithvi Raj and Mrs. Uma were teaching Tamil subject in the college. She further deposed that for some period, the college was shifted to Byappanahalli. She deposed that the practical classes were conducted at different places outside the campus and she attended all the exams. She deposed that Chairman of the institution issued hall tickets after receiving Rs.10,000/- and permitted to attend the exams. She further deposed that for the first time in the year 2007, she got hall 70 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 ticket as such she appeared for only three exams. She further deposed that faculty members by name B.C.Ramaswamy, Kantharaju, Vijaykumar, Venkatesh Gowda, Nagaraju and Manjunatha were not the faculty members of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution. She deposed that at the intervention of the court, she got D.Ed., certificate and accused no.2 refused to issue original D.Ed., certificate after completion of the course. She deposed that she had not received her original marks cards of SSLC and PUC from the institution, as such she did not get death benefits of her husband.
47. In the cross-examination, this witness has deposed that she had D.Ed., course certificate to show that she completed the said course in Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution. Further, it has been elicited from the mouth of this witness that earlier Jayaram was running the institution at Tirpathur and she paid the amount to Jayaram in the college, at that time nobody was 71 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 present except her parents. She deposed that she paid Rs.60,000/- as admission fee for 2 years course and also paid Rs.1,600/- per month to Mr.Jayaram towards accommodation and food. This witness has denied a suggestion that entire D.Ed., course was conducted and completed only at Vishwanathapuram and further deposed that practical classes were conducted in the building of the accused no.2 at Byappanahalli, and there were 50 students by that time. She in the cross- examination voluntarily deposed that accused no.2 received Rs.10,000/- to give hall ticket and inspite of her request, college has not returned her originals of II PUC and SSLC. The evidence of the above said witness makes it very clear that she had completed D.Ed., course in Tamil medium at Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution at the instance of Jayaram, and she paid fees to the accused no.2 towards the said course.
72 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
48. The prosecution has also got examined Sri Shivalingaiah s/o Nanjundappa who was Senior assistant Director for Public Instruction working in Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board. He deposed that during the year 2005-07, he worked in the said capacity and later, he was transferred to D.Ed., section and worked there till 2010. He deposed as to the branches of KSEEB and the institution has to obtain permission from the NCTE and also Gate permission and NOC from the State Government to run the courses in a particular medium. Further, he deposed that concerned institution has to obtain institutional code from KSEEB through DIET and thereafter on verification, KSEEB will provide code to the institution. He deposed that while working in KSEEB, he had gone through the letter submitted by Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution for institution code and one of his Section Officer Mr. Rajendra wrote a letter to the institution to resubmit the application 73 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 through the Principal DIET with necessary documents. He further deposed that Secretary of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution again wrote a letter seeking for permission to conduct the exams for the academic year 2004-05 and 2005-06 which has been rejected by their office. He further deposed that in the month of August 2006, NCTE accorded permission to Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution for the academic year 2006-07 and State Government also permitted the institution to run D.Ed., course in Tamil medium for the said year. He further deposed that meanwhile the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka passed orders permitting the institution students to appear for the examination from November 2007 with a condition not to announce the results. He further deposed that they accorded the permission to write exams accordingly for the academic year 2004-05, 2005-06 and also they accorded permission to the institution to conduct the exams in the month of November 74 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 2008 in view of order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. This witness has identified the receipt memo under which he has furnished the file pertaining to the Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution as per Ex.P62. He further got marked the said entire file as Ex.P63.
49. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that during the investigation, CBI has not shown any corresponding files to him but he appeared before the CBI office along with file pertaining to Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution. He further deposed that as per oral request of the CBI, he handed over the file pertaining to Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution. From perusal of entire cross-examination of this witness, it is quite clear that nothing worthwhile has been elicited from the mouth of this witness. The accused no.2 adopted the above said cross-examination whereas accused no.3 to 5 have not chosen to cross-examine this witness. 75 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
50. The prosecution has also got examined the Retired Assistant Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad Sri Jayakumar as PW.16 in order to prove the FD receipts of Sri Karagadamma Chits and Finance Pvt. Ltd., which were submitted by Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution to NCTE at the time of application seeking for recognition to the courses. This witness has stated that during the year 1990 company by name Sri Karagadamma Chits and Finance Pvt. Ltd., was registered in the office of Registrar of Companies and he identified the registration certificate of the said institution as per Ex.P64. In the cross-examination, it has been elicited that CBI applied for certified copy of Ex.P64 and same is not the certified copy, but it is original one. He failed to state how the CBI officials collected Ex.P64 and his statement is not recorded by the CBI officials.
51. The CEO of Basaveshwara Nagara Co- operative Credit Society Limited, Bengaluru was 76 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 examined by the prosecution as PW.17 to prove that their society's registration number bearing 16687/ 1989-90 dated 12/10/1989 was misused to issue fixed deposit receipts in order to give the same to NCTE, Delhi along with application for recognition for the courses. He has deposed that their society was situated at Shop. No. 3 and 4, 8 th Main Road, BDA Complex, 3rd Stage, 3rd Block, Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru, and now it is shifted to No. 159/J, 4th Main Road, 3rd Stage, 3rd Block, Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru, and registered with the above said number. He deposed that Investigating Officer confronted him some FDRs belonging to Sree Karagadamma Co-operative Bank Ltd., and on perusal of the said document, he found that their society's registration number was misused on the said FDRs. He got marked the attested copy of their society's Registration Certificate as per Ex.P65, and his signature appearing on it as Ex.P65(a). Through the said witness, the true copy of 77 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 the first sheet of the charge-sheet filed in Crime No. 80/2005 of Jalahalli Police Station marked as Ex.P66 and the FD receipts marked as Ex.P67 to Ex.P69.
52. In the cross-examination for accused no.2, it is admitted by this witness that their society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, and same was done in the first circle, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru. He denied that every circle has its own numbers and there are chances of reflecting the same registration number in different circles. He admitted that CBI have confronted only photostat copies of the said FDRs and also the Co- operative Society is different from Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
53. The prosecution has also examined PW.18 to PW.20 who completed their D.Ed., course at Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution and through them it was culled out that they have paid Rs.20,000/-, Rs.85,000/-, Rs.40,000/- 78 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 respectively at the time of admission and later paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.50,000/- towards admission fee. These witnesses have deposed that they have also paid Rs. 1,600/- every month with their accommodation and came to know about the said college through Mr. Jayaram, Mr. Solomon Suresh of Bangarpet. PW.18 specifically deposed that she paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to Mr. Jayaram who was the Principal of the College who has not issued receipt for payment. She further deposed that accused no.2 was Co-ordinator of the college in which she studied D.Ed., in Tamil medium. She deposed that during the said time, Mr. Jayaram was Principal and next year Mr. Madesh joined the college as teaching staff. She deposed that first year classes were conducted at Devahanalli, second year classes were conducted in Indira Gandhi School, Byappanahalli, and in the hostel, there was no facility of toilet and water. These witnesses have deposed that in the first year examination they did 79 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 not get hall ticket in time, and the accused no.2 demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,500/- respectively from them in order to give hall ticket and after the payment of said amount, he has issued hall tickets. Further, these witnesses have deposed that they do not know the faculty members of the institution by name B.C.Ramaswamy, Vijaykumar, Venkatesh Gowda, Kantharaju, Nagaraju and C. Manjunath, and they never seen them in the college. They further deposed that the accused no.2 did not issued certificate even after completion of the course and there-afterwards they approached the court, through it they got their certificates.
54. In the cross-examination, PW.18 stated that she came to know about the college through Jayaram and in the said college, the first year classes were conducted earlier at Devanahalli, denied that even second year classes conducted there itself. These witnesses have admitted that practical training classes were conducted at Tanny 80 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Road and Byappanahalli. She stated that she submitted application to the college which was received by Mr. Jayaram and denied a suggestion that accused no.2 never insisted to pay Rs.10,500/- for issuance of hall ticket and no such amount was paid by her. They deposed that as per the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, they get certificates after completion of the D.Ed., course.
55. The prosecution has also got examined one Mr. M. Govindaraj s/o Murugesh who also completed his D.Ed., course at Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution and he deposed as to payment of Rs.40,000/- at the time of his admission to one Mr. Venkatesh and Sarala, but they have not issued any receipt for the same. He further deposed that he has also paid Rs.1,600/- per month for his accommodation and he came to know about the said college through Venkatesh. He deposed that he paid Rs.3,000/- as book fee and Jayaram was the Principal of the said institution. He 81 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 deposed that he completed D.Ed., course in the said institution in Tamil medium and at that time, Mr.Jayaram was the Principal and next year Mr.Madesh joined the institution as a teaching staff. He deposed that first year classes were conducted at Devanahalli and for the second year, they were conducted at Indira Gandhi English Medium School, Byappanahalli. He further deposed that in the first year, he could not get hall ticket in time, as such he could not take up two exams so also for the second year. He deposed that the accused no.2 Theerthe Gowda demanded Rs.80,000/- so as to issue hall tickets and at the intervention of police, he got hall ticket and appeared for exam.
56. This witness has further deposed that he does not know the faculty members by name B.C.Ramaswamy, Vijaykumar, Venkatesh Gowda, Kantharaju, Nagaraju and C. Manjunath, and he never seen them in the college. He deposed that after completion of the D.Ed., course, he approached 82 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 accused no.2, but he did not issued certificate and after approaching the court, he took the certificate from DIET. He got identified the register of admission for the year 2006-07 and also his photo at sl.no.4 and same are marked as Ex.P70 and Ex.P70(a). In the cross-examination, nothing worthwhile has been elicited from the mouth of this witness and denied suggestion that accused no.2 never insisted for money for issuance of hall ticket.
57. The Retired Deputy Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Bengaluru was examined as PW.22 by the prosecution who deposed as to issuance of No Objection Certificate to Vishwanatha Vidya Samsthe, Bengaluru Rural District for establishing Teacher Training Institution offering D.Ed., course. He deposed that he signed the said Government Order and identified his signature as Ex.P9(a) by deposing that the said institution by violating the conditions has shifted the institution. In the cross-examination, this witness 83 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 deposed that CBI enquired him as to Ex.P9 and further there were no conditions regarding medium of instructions and also place of conducting practical classes in Ex.P9. He admitted that their office had not received any complaint regarding shifting of institution from one place to another.
58. The prosecution has also got examined S.Ramananda s/o M.Sheshagiri Rao, Retired Inspector of Co-operative Society who deposed that in the year 2009, he was enquired by the CBI and he has furnished documents under the receipt memo got marked as Ex.P71. He deposed that as per Ex.P72, he has furnished certified copy of extract of register and identified his signature as per Ex.P72(a). He deposed that as per extract of register, Register No.ARBI/REGN/16687/89-90 dated 12/10/1989 is relating to Basaveshwaranagar Credit Co-operative Society Limited situated at No.8, 2nd Main, 2nd Block, 3rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru and got marked the relevant entry as Ex.P72(b). He deposed 84 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 that the Investigating Officer confronted the document relating to Sree Karagadamma Co- operative Bank Ltd., and by perusing the register extract, he deposed that Sree Karagadamma Co- operative Bank Ltd., was not registered at the office of Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society, Bengaluru First Circle, Malleshwaram.
59. In the cross-examination, this witness has deposed that on the basis of the area, the registration circle are bifurcated and once he went to the office at CBI, but they have not shown the FD receipts and admitted that the Co-operative Society Ltd., and Co-operative Bank Ltd., are different from each other.
60. The prosecution has also got examined the Police Inspector of Jalahalli Police, Bengaluru as PW.24 who deposed that as per the request of CBI, he has furnished the attested copies of the charge- sheet of CC.No.9283/2006, FD receipts bearing Nos. 2501 to 2503 issued by Sree Karagadamma Co- 85 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 operative Bank Ltd., and its originals were filed along with the charge-sheet. He identified the said FD receipts as per Ex.P66 to Ex.P69.
61. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he is not the Investigating Officer of the present case and he has produced the request letter issued by CBI in criminal case. It has been elicited that original FDRs were submitted along with the charge-sheet and he has not produced Ex.P66 to Ex.P69. He denied suggestion that in CC. No. 9283/06, the accused no.2 was acquitted.
62. The prosecution has also got examined S.Sorna who completed her D.Ed., course at Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution, Bengaluru as PW.25 who deposed that through one Mr.Jayaram she got admission in the said college and paid Rs.83,000/- to him and Theerthe Gowda - accused no.2 towards admission fees and she has also paid Rs.1,600/- per month towards hostel fees to Jayaram. She deposed that Jayaram and accused 86 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 no.2 made endorsement in a paper for having received the above said amount. She deposed that she completed D.Ed., course in Tamil medium and for the first year, Jayaram was the Principal and there were no faculty members in the said college. She deposed that for the first year, classes were conducted at Vishwanathapura and next year, same were conducted at Indira Gandhi School, Byappanahalli. She further deposed that for the first year, hall tickets were not issued therefore she could not attend the exam for two subjects. She further deposed that classes were not conducted regularly and she has not seen faculty members by name B.C. Ramaswamy, Kantharaju, Vijaykumar, Venkatesh Gowda, Nagaraju and C. Manjunath and after completion of the course, through the intervention of the court, she got original certificates. She identified two receipts as per Ex.P73, seizure memo as per Ex.P74 and also her photo appearing in the register of admission as Ex.P70(b).
87 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
63. In the cross-examination, it has been elicited that he has paid Rs.50,000/- to accused no.2 and remaining Rs.40,000/- and odd to Jayaram in cash and through D.D. He specifically stated that accused no.2 has not issued receipt for the same and denied suggestion that he has not paid the amount to the accused no.2. He also denied a suggestion that he has received hall tickets from the college. He specifically stated that initially Jayaram received the hostel fees and later accused no.2 received the same without issuing any receipt. It is denied that no such amount was collected by accused no.2. It is also denied that accused no.2 has not issued receipts as per Ex.P73 and specifically stated that the said receipts were issued in A4 size paper and he did not ask accused no.2 to issue receipts in letterhead of the institution. This Witness voluntarily stated that he does not know whether the college had letterhead or not.
88 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
64. The prosecution has also got examined one Mr.Suresh Francis s/o John Francis as PW26 who worked as Incharge Principal in Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution. He deposed that he approached the institution for a job during the month of January or February 2008 and directly contacted the accused no.2 who assured him a job of Incharge Principal to the institution on a salary of Rs.8,000/- per month and agreeing for the same, he started to work there. Further, he deposed that classes were conducted at Indira Gandhi English Medium High School, Byappanahalli and for all official correspondence and inspections, the address of the institution was mentioned as Vishwanathapuram, Devanahalli. This witness has deposed that when he joined the institution, there were hardly 9 to 10 students attending the classes and on enquiry, accused no.2 stated that the remaining students who were irregular will attend only exams and he used to collect a sum of 89 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Rs.8,000/- to Rs.50,000/- for giving attendance to such irregular students. He deposed that he did not received his appointment letter, and in respect of the students admission register was maintained as per Ex.P70. He deposed that he has not seen the students whose name is forth coming in the said register except 9-10 students who were attending the classes. Further, this witness has deposed that for the year 2007-08 no admission had taken place in the institution as there was lack of proper accommodation, infrastructure and for the students who were residing there, there was no proper facility. He further deposed that students were not able to sit, attend first two exams due to non-availability of the hall tickets and the Secretary was maintaining attendance register for teaching staff and deposed that there were only the two teaching staff, and he was among them and another lady by name Mrs. Umarani. He further deposed that Smt. Bharathi and Smt. Jayalakshmi were the staff of Indira 90 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Gandhi Primary School and not the staff of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution. He deposed that during his tenure in the institution, he had never seen teaching staff by name Mr.Ramaswamy, Kantharaju, Mr.Nagaraju, Mr.Venkatesh Gowda and Mr. Manjunath.C. He identified attendance register of the institution for the year 2005-08 as per Ex.P52 and also identified the signatures of the accused no.2 appearing in Page No.15 to 18 and same were marked as Ex.P52(a) to Ex.P52(e). He further deposed that he was not paid any salary and got marked the salary register as per Ex.P75. He deposed that accused no.2 was maintaining the financial aspects of the institution and he has not seen any receipt book issued to any students for having paid the tuition fee. He further deposed that he has not come across any student admission form or any annexed documents and institution was running college in Tamil medium and students were taken to Kadugondanahalli for 91 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 practical classes where Tamil schools were situated. He deposed that he was not paid salary and on enquiry with accused no.2, he stated that salary will be paid if he got any students admitted in the institution. Through this witness the photograph of the Indira Gandhi English Medium High School were got marked as Ex.P76, and also the seizure memo under which he handed over the documents to the Investigating Officer as Ex.P77. He further deposed that the DIET had visited the Vishwanathapura, Devanahalli and he was informed of the said visit by the Secretary, as such they took the students to Vishwanathapura, Devanahalli. He further deposed that when they took students there, there were some staff but he had never seen them prior to it. He further deposed that accused no.2 told the Inspection Team that the classes were conducted at Vishwanathapura, Devanahalli itself.
65. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that when DIET conducted the inspection, 92 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 he along with students and staff were present and said inspection was conducted at Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution, Vishwanathapura, Devanahalli. It has been elicited that said Inspection Team was not aware of the classes being conducted at Indira Gandhi English Medium High School, Byappanahalli but stated that there were two members from DIET Inspection Team.
66. This witness was recalled by the accused no.2 for the purpose of cross-examination and suggestion was denied to the effect that the institution was situated at Devanahalli and not at HBR Layout, Bengaluru. This witness voluntarily stated that institution was situated at Byappanahalli. Further, he stated that he orally requested management of the institution to disburse the salary and the Secretary of the institution was maintaining the staff register as per Ex.P52 and himself and Umarani were working at that point of time. Further, it has been elicited that he has not 93 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 raised any objections for working with only two staff members in the institution and admitted that all the persons mentioned in the staff register were working at that point of time. He further stated that he visited the Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution premises at Vishwanathapuram, Devanahalli for the purpose of inspection and denied that said institution was having 4 storied building with all infrastructure. He admitted that it is not the duty of the Secretary of the institution to collect hall tickets from the concerned authorities and said duty is rest with Principal of the institution. He voluntarily stated that the hall tickets were not issued due to pendency of court case against the institution and none of the students have lodged the complaint for non-issuance of receipts for payment of tuition fees and admission fees. This witness has denied suggestion that the exams were conducted in the institution, and all the students have cleared the same. He deposed that he handed over the 94 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 documents to the CBI which were kept in the office of the Secretary for the purpose of inspection. He denied that Ex.P52 register does not belonged to the institution and also stated that the practical classes were conducted at Kadugondanahlli and in some Government school in Tamil medium.
67. One Mr.V.Jayaraman s/o P. Venu Mudaliar who worked as Principal at Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution was examined by the prosecution as PW.27 who deposed that during the year 2006-07, he worked as Principal and at that time, Theerthe Gowda was the Secretary of the institution. He deposed that 8 students were got admitted by him in the institution and PW.26 Suresh also got admitted some students. He deposed that there were no staffs available and there was no infrastructure having only one room. He deposed that he entered into an agreement with accused no.2 with respect to getting the students admitted to the institution according to which he 95 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 was required to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- initially and at the completion of the academic year, he was required to pay further sum of Rs.26,00,000/- to the accused no.2 and he was having control over the administration of the institution under the first agreement. He further deposed that initially he had taken care of the expenses of the students and accused no.2 used to collect fees from them, and he got marked the seizure memo as Ex.P78 and deposed that original alleged agreement was taken away from his house without his knowledge and he had paid Rs.60,000/- each towards 8 students whom he got admitted in the institution by way of cheque and DD and he deposed that he can identify the receipts which are produced under seizure memo dated 10/02/2009 as per Ex.P79. He also identified the receipt dated 8/12/2007 as per Ex.P80 and specifically deposed that accused no.2 has signed on the said receipt. The signature of accused no.2 is identified as Ex.P80(a). This witness further deposed 96 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 that during the year 2005, one Mr. Sarvanan of Villupuram village had got admitted 50 students to the said college when there was no orders of the NCERT, hence the students were unable to take up exams. He further deposed that at that time, accused no.2 stated that the order pertaining to Adi Parashakthi Institution would be received shortly, but no such order came to be passed. He deposed as to the investigation launched as against the accused no.2 and also as to no recognition for the institution. He further deposed to the effect that after 3-4 months, accused no.2 informed him as to NCERT recognition to the institution and identified the register which was maintained at the institution as per Ex.P70. He deposed that as per the NCTE rules, one Principal and 5 faculty members are required to run the institution whereas, in the institution there was only one sole faculty. He further deposed that by taking permission of the Department of State Education Research and Training (DSERT), 97 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 appointments of staff have to be made but no such approval was obtained. He further deposed that initially Ex.P70 register was with him and later accused no.2 took away it. He deposed that even though the accused no.2 issued appointment letter, but same was taken away by him without his knowledge and he was not paid any salary for the services rendered and there was no acquittance register in the institution. One Mrs.Anandi and Mrs. Gomathi worked as Attender and Cook and he identified the students register as per Ex.P52. With reference to the Ex.P52, he deposed that the persons whose name is reflected in it were not at all worked in the institution nor he has affixed his signature and identified accused no.2 before the court.
68. In the cross-examination, it has been elicited that he had gone through the NCTE orders, but stated that he has not seen any communication from NCTE, Delhi. The learned counsel for the accused no.2 in the cross-examination elicited that 98 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 he came to know about the institution from one Mr.Patil who was in search of job. He deposed that he has not given application to the institution seeking for job and stated that he has no original copy of the agreement entered with the accused no.2 in respect of getting the students admitted to the institution. He admitted that when he was appointed as Principal to the institution, the classes were running but denied that there was no such agreement between him and the accused no.2. With respect to the Ex.P80, this witness has stated that same was executed by accused no.2 in his house and he has not issued any receipts for having collected the fees from the students. He denied a suggestion that Ex.P80 does not bear the signature of the accused no.2, but stated that when Ex.P80 was executed by accused no.2, his wife was also present but failed to state the address of the house of the accused where Ex.P80 was stated to have been executed by accused no.2. He denied 99 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 suggestion that there was full-pledged infrastructure in the institution to run the courses and admitted that it is the responsibility of the Principal to collect the hall tickets and conduct examination. He admitted that he has no documents to show that accused no.2 used to collect the fees from the students and students have not complained for not issuing receipts after collecting fees from them. He stated the names of the students in respect of whom he has paid Rs.60,000/- each to the accused no.2, and stated that above students have issued cheques and DDs in his favour and also in the name of the institution. He admitted that before he joined the institution there were 50 students for only one month, and he denied a suggestion that all those 50 students have cleared D.Ed., course. He denied a suggestion that there were teaching facility in the institution and admitted that he has not issued notice to the accused no.2 demanding his salary. 100 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
69. The prosecution has also got examined one Smt.G.Kokila D/o Gopal who completed her D.Ed., course in the institution during 2006, and she deposed that she came to know about the institution through Jayaraman - PW.27, who was the Principal of the institution at that time. She deposed that for the first year, she had paid fees of Rs.50,000/- by way of DD by availing education loan and there-afterwards she remitted the fees towards tuition, book, tour and also she used to pay Rs.1,600/- per month for food and accommodation for which the institution had not issued any receipts. She deposed that the medium of instruction was Tamil and there were no faculty members and classes were not conducting regularly. She deposed that for the second year, the classes were shifted to Dr. Indira Gandhi English Medium High School, Byappanahalli but there also no classes were conducted regularly and she used to stay at the hostel of the above said school in the same locality. 101 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 She deposed that one Mrs.Sarala was Head Mistress of the said school and she was also Mess In-charge. She deposed that in the said school, there were no basic facilities and practical classes were conducted at Halasuru. She deposed that for the first year, she attended only two exams and remaining two exams were not attended by her due to non-supply of hall ticket, and later she got the hall ticket and cleared one paper. During the second year, one Suresh was the Principal of the institution and Prithvi Raj, Umarani were Lecturers. She deposed that institution has not issued completion certificate to her and so also the exams results. She deposed that due to the intervention of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, she received the completion certificate as well as marks card. She specifically deposed that one Mr.Kantharaju, Vijay Kumar, Venkatesh Gowda, B.N.Nagaraju and C.Manjunath never worked as a Principal and faculty members and she never seen them in the institution. She deposed that during the 102 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 year 2006-08, accused no.2 was Administrator and he demanded money so as to issue completion certificate. She identified the seizure memo bearing the signature of his father as Ex.P81 and xerox copy of DD which has been submitted by her to the institution as Ex.P82. She identified her photograph appearing in the admission register as per Ex.P72(d).
70. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that through an agent, she came to know about the Principal Jayaraman, and she has paid Rs.50,000/- towards her admission. She specifically stated that she used to pay fees towards tuition, book and tour in cash in the office of the Principal. She had paid amount towards food and accommodation to Mr. Jayaraman. This witness has stated that due to want of facilities in Devanahalli, courses were shifted to Byappanahalli in which also there were no facilities. She deposed that she orally complained as to not having facilities and denied suggestion that institution at Devanahalli had all 103 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 infrastructures to conduct D.Ed., courses including staff. It has been elicited from the mouth of this witness that the Department has supplied the hall tickets but same were not furnished by the institution, because of which she did not appeared for two exams. She deposed that hall tickets were in the custody of the persons of the institution, and denied that as per the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Department had issued hall tickets to all the students. She admitted that she had completed D.Ed., course in the above said institution and do not know whether all the students have received their respective marks cards. She denied a suggestion that accused no.2 was never in in-charge of the institution at any point of time.
71. The prosecution has also examined a Teacher by name Sri Thomas Raj as PW.29 who deposed that as per the assurance of Suresh, he met Jayaram PW.27, the Principal of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution and got admitted 19 104 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 students to the said institution. He deposed that Jayaram had issued receipt for Rs.5,000/- to the admitted students and in total they have paid Rs.2,00,000/- towards it. He further deposed that accused no.2 demanded a sum of Rs.55,000/- from each student as a donation and they have paid Rs.60,000/- including donation of Rs.55,000/- to the accused no.2 who has not issued receipt for the same. He further deposed that accused no.2 noted down the above said payment of amount as well as donation and later he came to know that there was no Tamil medium in the institution. He deposed that as per the court order, all the students wrote exam in Tamil language and got passed but issuing of marks card was withheld. It is deposed that for the second year, the accused no.2 demanded Rs.60,000/- as donation from each student who have paid the same and issued hall ticket just 1 ½ hour before the exam. He further deposed that before issuing hall tickets, accused no.2 demanded 105 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 the donation of which has been arranged by some students. He further deposed that accused no.2 demanded additional amount which has been paid from his pocket to the sum of Rs.30,000/-. This witness has identified the seizure memo under which he has furnished documents to the Investigating Officer as Ex.P83 and also receipts issued by Jayaram as per Ex.P84 to Ex.P99. The accused no.1, 3 to 5 have not chosen to cross-examine this witness, and in the cross-examination of accused no.2, this witness has stated that the medium of instruction of the institution was Tamil and the students have paid donation directly to Mr.Theerthe Gowda and Rs.5,000/- each directly to Jayaram, but failed to state the number of students who have paid the above said money. He stated that inspite of demand for receipts, the accused no.2 has not issued the same, and denied the suggestion that none of the students have paid either fees or donation to the accused no.2 and admitted that it is 106 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 the responsibility of the Principal of the institution to issue transfer certificate, marks card and hall tickets. He further denied a suggestion that accused no.2 was not at all involved in any transaction and failed to state the exact payment of donations and fees but specifically stated that each student has paid Rs.60,000/-. He further denied a suggestion that all 19 students have been issued with marks card. It has been elicited that through the intervention of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the above said marks cards were issued by accused no.2, and at that time, he was present. He further denied a suggestion that there was an endorsement as to the balance of the fees in the marks card and transfer certificate.
72. The Assistant Director and Scientist, CFSL, Chandigarh by name Sri C.Rajesh s/o Late K.R.C.Nair was examined as PW.30 by the prosecution who deposed that at the time of examining the questioned documents, he was 107 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 discharging his duties as Assistant Government Examiner of questioned documents at Hyderabad and he compared the questioned signatures appearing on page no. 15 to 17 of Ex.P52, questioned signatures appearing on Fixed Deposits which are marked as Ex.P100 and also the signatures that were appearing on the Demand Promissory Note dated 7/4/2016 of Rs.13.50 lakhs marked as Ex.P101. He also deposed as to the comparing of signatures and handwriting appearing on FD receipts of Indian Bank, Halasuru Branch dated 20/9/2007- Ex.P103, Demand Promissory Note dated 3/5/2006 of Rs.8,00,000/- marked as Ex.P103, two receipts dated 14/11/2007 and 17/10/2008 out of Ex.P73, receipt dated 8/12/2007 Ex.P17, two receipts dated 2/3/2008 and 9/11/2008 Ex.P104, Ex.P105, pamphlet of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution marked as Ex.P42. He further deposed that he also received specimen writing and signatures of accused 108 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 no.2 in 12 sheets as per Ex.P106 and same are assigned as S1 to S12.
73. He deposed that on comparison of signatures and handwriting by applying the accepted principle of like material comparison by using necessary scientific equipment to come to conclusion that there are sufficient number of significant similarities between the questioned and specimen handwriting signatures and opined that author of both are one and the same. He got marked opinion dated 2/6/2009 and annexed documents as Ex.P107 to Ex.P110.
74. In the cross-examination, this witness submitted that specimen signatures were not obtained in his presence and same have been obtained by the Investigating Officer. He admitted that the signatures will vary according to the materials on which they are made and based upon specimen signatures which were furnished to him, he has given his opinion and denied suggestion that 109 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 S4 to S6 does not tally with S7 to S12 and both are of different persons. He also denied suggestion that the signatures S4 to S6 does not belonged to accused no.2 and they will not tally with signatures S7 to S12.
75. The Retired Assistant Manger of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Nelamangala Sri Jacob thomas was examined as PW.31 by the prosecution to prove the search conducted at Indira Gandhi High School, Old Byappanahalli on 10/1/2009. He deposed that on the said date, accompanying with CBI Inspector Mr. Raja search was conducted in the above said premises in the presence of accused no.2 and found that most of the rooms were empty except almirah and benches. From the almirah, documents were seized and during the process, photographs of the rooms of the institution were taken. He further deposed that he has put his signature on the backside of the photograph and search list was prepared as per Ex.P112. He deposed that the 110 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 documents which are seized in his presence are already marked as Ex.P75 and identified the admission register for the year 2004-05 as per Ex.P113.
76. This witness has also deposed as to his presence during obtaining specimen signatures of accused no.2 and stated that on 1/5/2009 he was called at CBI office, Hebbala wherein one Mr. Ramachandra was also present and in the presence of himself and Mr.Ramachandra, the specimen signatures of accused no.2 were obtained and identified the said specimen signatures and handwriting as S1 to S12. He also deposed that the said specimen signatures and handwriting are already marked as Ex.P106 and identified his signature as Ex.P106(a).
77. In the cross-examination, this witness has deposed that the search on the above said date was conducted at Indira Gandhi English High School, Old Byappanahalli, Bengaluru and he was not aware 111 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 as to whether search was conducted at the institution situated at Devanahalli. He specifically deposed that documents which were seized during search were in the custody of accused no.2 who kept them in the cubboard. He further stated that as per directions of Vigilance Officer, he was present during conducting search and specifically stated that accused no.2 has signed to Ex.P111 in his presence and when he was asked to identify the signature of accused, the witness has identified the same as per Ex.P111 (c). He denied suggestion that said specimen signatures were taken at the office of the CBI and Mr.Raja who was Inspector conducted the search. He denied that only in order to file the charge-sheet, the photographs were taken. The accused no.4 and 5 have not chosen to cross- examine this witness whereas accused no.3 adopted the above said cross-examination.
78. The prosecution has also got examined student by name Usha as PW.32 who deposed as to 112 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 her admission in the institution of the accused no.2 by payment of Rs.83,000/- to Mr. Jayaram and accused no.2. She deposed that she has paid said fees in installments and in white sheets, the receipts came to be issued to her. She deposed that she used to pay fee towards exam, books to Mr. Theerthe Gowda and Rs.1,500/- monthly towards her accommodation and food. She got identified the seizure memo under which the above said receipts were seized as per Ex.P114 and the receipts bearing signature of accused no.2 as Ex.P104 and Ex.P105. She identified name of her entry in the admission register as per Ex.P70(c) and deposed that Mr.Jayaram was only the teaching staff and classes were not conducted regularly because of shortage of staff. She further deposed that after she took admission, classes were shifted to Byappanahalli from Devanahalli and in the hostel, there was no electricity, water and toilet. She deposed that she never heard any faculty by name B.C.Ramaswamy, 113 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Kantharaju, Vijaykumar, Venkatesh Gowda, B.N.Nagaraju and C.Manjunath. She deposed that as she could not get hall tickets in time, she wrote only two papers and after six months, she wrote other papers. She further deposed that for the second year, one Mr.Suresh used to took classes at Byappanahalli in place of Mr.Jayaram and Mr.Theerthe Gowda used to collect fees at the time of issuing hall tickets. She deposed that she paid Rs.60,000/- at the time of attending first year exam and remaining balance of Rs.20,000/- was paid at the writing of second year exam by handing over all her original documents to accused no.2 who has not returned the same. She identified accused no.2 before the court.
79. This witness was not chosen to cross- examine by accused no.3 to 5 and in the cross- examination of accused no.2, it has been elicited that the fee structure was not furnished to her inspite of request and she paid entire fee of 114 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Rs.83,000/- to Mr.Jayaram by way of Demand Draft and cash. She denied a suggestion that Ex.P104 to Ex.P105 receipts were not handed over by accused no.2. It is admitted that practical classes used to be conducted at Byappanahalli and Mr.Jayaram was looking after the entire administration. This witness further stated that when she asked for receipts in a printed form, the accused no.2 assured to issue the same at later stage. It is elicited from the mouth of this witness that due to non-issuance of hall tickets by Department, there was a delay in obtaining the hall tickets and denied that there was sufficient staff and infrastructure in the institution. She deposed that as there were no basic facilities at Devanahlli, the institution was shifted to Byappanahalli and along with her 54 students studied D.Ed., course. A suggestion was denied that she has not paid any amount to the accused no.2. The evidence of this witness reveals that she studied D.Ed., course in the institution of accused no.2 by paying fees. 115 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
80. The prosecution has also got examined Sub Inspector, CBI, ACB Branch, Bengaluru as PW.33 who deposed that he was Preliminary Enquiry Officer and conducted inspection panchanama in the presence of CW.78 and 82 on 28/6/2008 at Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution, Devanahalli, Bengaluru between 10 am to 5 pm. He deposed that when they visited the institution, they met Head Master of Primary School Mr. Thirumalesh who called accused no.2 and as per his directions, Mr.Thirumalesh has shown records pertaining to Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution. He further deposed that Mr. Thirumalesh took them to the ground floor of the building where one room was made for Principal, teaching faculty and other staff. He further deposed that there was no separate room for staff or any infrastructure to conduct the D.Ed., course. He further deposed that the other two rooms were empty and in the first floor of the building there was laboratory without any chemical substance. 116 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Further he deposed that laboratories were full of dust and no classes were conducted there for long time. With respect to visit to Library, this witness has deposed that there were no books pertaining to D.Ed., course and it was full of dust. He deposed that there were 5 unused computers in Computer Branch with no connection and psychological laboratory in which they found table, chairs, maps, manuals and materials relating to D.Ed., course. He further deposed that on enquiry, they came to know that all the staff and students went to Goa for education tour and hostel was empty with full of dust and no personal belongings of the students found at the hostel. He deposed that with the help of sri Venkatesh of Sai Photos, entire building was video graphed in their presence and some snaps were taken. He deposed that some buffaloes were tied at the entrance gate of the building and there was no separate washroom for boys and girls. He further deposed that there was no play ground and 117 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 gymnastic room and they were taken to play ground which was about 3 KMs away from the building and told that it was likely play ground for the institution. He further deposed that no records pertaining to the building were furnished and recording the above said facts, a proceedings was drawn and prepared assessment proforma as contemplated under Section 14 of the NCTE Act. He further deposed that he has made notes of the findings at the time of conducting the inspection. He got marked the mahazar dated 28/6/2008 as Ex.P115 and also assessment proforma of inspection as Ex.P116. He further deposed that the above said videographer burnt the data to DVD and he has compared the said data with DVD. He deposed that on 16/6/2009, he had handed over the mahazar and assessment proforma , original DVD to PW.87 under the receipt memo - Ex.P117. He deposed that the said DVD was played in his presence and also in the presence of all the witnesses which contained videograph 118 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 made on 28/6/2008. He identified the proceedings of transferring the data to DVD at Ex.P118 and identified the photographs taken during the panchanama as Ex.P118. He also identified the DVD as Ex.P120 by deposing that same has been played with laptop. This witness further deposed that at the time of their visit, the floors of the building were under construction and identified the certificate issued under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act with regard to above said videograph as Ex.P121.
81. In the cross-examination, it has been elicited that there were 7 to 8 witnesses in the team which conducted inspection and they went to the spot in their official vehicles but failed to state the description of the vehicle. He deposed that the entire building of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution inch by inch was not covered as there was time constraint. He further stated that there was no instructions by his superior to capture particular part of the building and as accused no.2 was not 119 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 present, his signature is not appearing in the panchanama, photographs and videographs. It has been elicited from the mouth of this witness that he was not aware of the infrastructure of D.Ed., course and denied that the library appearing in Ex.P118(d) photograph is either Physics or Chemistry lab. It has been further elicited that the statement of videographer and also that of Thirumalesh was not recorded by them and failed to state the amount which was paid to videographer for taking videograph. He denied a suggestion that there was a playground, library with D.Ed., books. He denied that there was more than required infrastructure to run D.Ed., course with basic facilities and admitted that psychological laboratory is not necessary to run D.Ed., course. The above said cross-examination is adopted by accused no.1 and 3.
82. The learned counsel for the accused no.4 and 5 in the cross-examination of this witness elicited that on 28/6/2008 at about 7 to 7.30 am 120 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 they assembled at CBI office and suggested that the said day was Saturday because of which classes were conducted only upto 10 am. He denied suggestion that in his statement, he stated that accused no.2 told him that the students and staff went for education tour to Goa and as there was no technology to reflect date and time as such same is not appearing in the videograph and photos. He denied that videograph and photograph does not disclose the name of the institution and denied suggestion that no panchanama was conducted as per Ex.P115 in the institution.
83. The prosecution has also got examined another witness by name Sri Gururaj who was Deputy Manager in Department of Vigilance Department of SBM, Bengaluru as PW.34 who deposed as to conducting of panchanama, taking of photographs on 28/6/2008 at Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution, Vishwanathapuram, Devanahalli. He deposed in line with PW.33 and also 121 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 the infrastructure which was found when inspection was conducted. He identified his signatures appearing in inspection panchanama, and assessment proforma as Ex.P115(b) and Ex.P116(b). He identified the DVD which contains the videograph of the building as per Ex.P12(a) and also transforming the data from camera to DVD on 14/10/2009 in the presence of witnesses and identified the sealed cover and DVD, proceedings as per Ex.P120(a), Ex.P119(a) and Ex.P118(h). He also identified the photographs which were taken from the DVD-R as Ex.P118(b) to Ex.P118(g).
84. Through the mouth of this witness, it has been elicited that no summons was issued to him to be present at the time of conducting the panchanama and as per the instructions of accused no.2, Mr.Thirumalesh shown the entire building by opening the lock. He stated that the photographer was not accompanied with him but he was present during the inspection. He denied a suggestion that in 122 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 one of the Notice Board at the Office it was mentioned that staff and students were went to study tour to Goa and same was not videographed purposely. He also denied that as per the instructions of Inspector, the videograph was conducted at selected places and failed to state the make and company of the camera through which videograph was made. It has been elicited that he is not expert in computers and he has not opened the books which were available in the library, and the class rooms which were locked were opened by Mr.Thirumalesh. He denied a suggestion that in the hostel, there were books and belongings of students and when entire proceedings was conducted it was about 5 pm in the evening. He failed to state the person who drawn the panchanama and denied suggestion that he was not present at the time of conducting the inspection. In the cross-examination of counsel for accused no.4 and 5, this witness has stated that they have not enquired with local 123 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 witnesses and as there was no technology to reflect the date and time of videograph, same was not reflected in the photographs. He denied a suggestion that he never visited the spot and drawing of panchanama in his presence.
85. The prosecution has also got examined the Under Secretary of Southern Regional Committee, NCTE, Bengaluru one Mr. D.N.Srinivasappa as PW.35 who deposed that in the month of October 2009, he was placed an in-charge of Regional Director of SRC, Bengaluru and during the said period, Investigating Officer has enquired him and shown comparative statement Ex.P116 pertaining to the institution and deposed that there no facilities to conduct D.Ed., course. He further deposed that there was a shortage of teaching staff, non-teaching staff, land and building, instructional facilities. With reference to Ex.P116 assessment proforma, he deposed that the institution was not qualified to start D.Ed., course. In the cross- 124 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 examination, this witness has deposed that on 5/10/2009, he was placed in-charge of the Regional Director and to that effect, orders were issued. He admitted that after taking charge as Additional Director he did not visit Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution and he has not prepared the comparative statement.
86. In the cross-examination conducted by the accused no.2, it has been elicited that he was not aware of norms in respect of B.Ed., course and failed to state who were present along with him at the time of preparing Ex.P116. He admitted that Ex.P116 is not prepared under his supervision, and denied that he has given false statement before the CBI officials.
87. The Regional Director of Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru was examined by the prosecution as PW.36 who deposed as to the role of Regional Director as a conveyor between the Regional Committee and the Council. He deposed 125 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 that as per the directions of the Chairman of Regional Committee meetings will be held every month depending upon the applications. He deposed that the meetings will be held by issuing prior notice to all the members informing as to the date and venue of the meeting. He deposed that as per the instructions of the Chairman, office will prepare the draft agenda and minutes will be approved by the Chairman of the Regional Committee and office will intimate the said resolution.
88. This witness has further deposed that during his tenure, he came to know as to the lodging complaint against the institution in relation to furnishing fake FD receipts. He identified the FIR as Ex.P26 and deposed that the then Under Secretary of NCERT headquarters, Delhi Mr. Agarwal directed him to withdraw the said complaint. He also identified the accused no.1 Sri S.K.Thakur who was Vice-chairman of NCTE, Delhi headquarters and deposed that during the meeting, he called him to 126 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 his office and asked him to withdraw the complaint lodged against the institution. He further deposed that in response to the application of the institution for affiliation certain shortcomings were forthcoming and same were communicated to the institution. He identified the orders of Southern Regional Committee rejecting the affiliation to the institution as Ex.P33 and submitted in Ex.P33 it has been mentioned that 3 FD Certificates of Rs.5,00,000/- each issued by Sree Karagadamma Co-operative Bank are fake and Ex.P33 order was communicated to the institution. He also deposed that since the police complaint was already lodged against the institution, he expressed his difficulties before accused no.1 to withdraw the complaint. He identified the letter addressed by the NCTE headquarters to him as per Ex.P27, and as per Ex.P28, he had issued reply. He further deposed that after meeting, the accused no.1 in the presence of then Deputy Secretary asked him to withdraw the complaint against the institution which was denied 127 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 by him as already complaint before the Jalahalli police station was pending. He also deposed that a letter dated 28/1/2006 was addressed by the Secretary of the institution and same was marked as Ex.P122. He also got identified the order passed by the SRC committee to issue recognition to D.Ed., course as per Ex.P35(c) and also order of Appellate Authority, NCTE Headquarter, Delhi dated 12/6/2006 as per Ex.P123. He further deposed that the said order was placed in 112 th meeting of SRC held on 12/13.06.2006 and for want of additional documents no decision was taken in the said meeting. He further deposed that in 113 th meeting of SRC held on 6/07.07.2006, the matter of the institution was again considered and it was decided to refer back the said matter to NCTE headquarters as the records and reports of the institution were with it. The said decision of the meeting was communicated to the Member Secretary of NCTE headquarters vide letter dated 20/07/2006 marked 128 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 as Ex.P38 and in response to the said letter, the Member Secretary issued reply as per Ex.P39 directing the SRC to implement the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and to send compliance report. He further deposed that in view of the said letter, in 116th meeting held on 22/23.08.2006, the SRC committee decided to grant permission to the institution to commence D.Ed., course. He further deposed that as per Ex.P41, the said decision was communicated to the institution. He deposed that under Ex.P41, it was directed to the institution to have one Principal and 5 faculty members. He further identified the communication to the institution as to its shortcomings as per Ex.P124, and as per the same, it was directed to the institution not to take admissions until final decision and identified accused no.1 before the court.
89. In the cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for the accused no.1, it has been elicited that since from March 2005, he was in NCTE 129 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 and from March 2005, till February/March 2008, he was in NCTE. It has been elicited that this witness has met accused no.1 for the first time in NCTE headquarters, Delhi after he became Vice-chairman and NCTE Delhi has not informed about the appeals filed by the institution. The witness has stated that the Member Secretary, Chairman and others will be the members of the Appeal Committee and he does not know who was the Chairman of the Appeal Committee during the year 2005. This witness admitted suggestion that Appeal Committee decided to send Visiting Team to the institution in the month of November 2005 but failed to state whether the said order was communicated to the SRC. He further admitted a suggestion that as per Ex.D1, the said order was communicated to the SRC but the said Visiting Team has not contacted him. Further, this witness has stated that he met accused no.1 in Bengaluru when he was proceeding out of Bengaluru and the NCTE headquarters in its 130 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 correspondence informed the committee of the SRC as to the status of appeal filed by the institution. It has been elicited that as per Ex.D2, a letter on 17/2/2006 was addressed by the Deputy Secretary, NCTE headquarters to him and he admitted that accused no.1 has not addressed letter to the SRC office seeking for status of criminal case lodged against the institution. He stated that he has gone through the complaint lodged before the Jalahalli police in which there is no reference as to the accused no.1.
90. This witness has admitted that the Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru has approved the permission of the institution to start D.Ed., course and one Mr. Ponnuswamy was Chairman of SRC at that point of time and said decision was collective decision of the committee. He admitted that the signature of the accused no.1 is not forthcoming in Ex.P123 and according to it, matter has been remanded to Southern Regional 131 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Committee, Bengaluru. He deposed that the said order of Appellate Authority was implemented as per Ex.P41. It has been elicited from the mouth of this witness that he furnished documents from SRC office to the IO and admitted that unless requisition is made, he has no authority to collect the documents from the Southern Regional Committee. He failed to state the exact date, month and year in which he met accused no.1 and also the purpose of said meeting. It has been elicited that along with the application seeking for recognition, the FD receipts have to be furnished and the said application will be processed by the SRC office. It has been elicited that application filed by the institution and also FD receipts are communicated to the NCTE headquarters, but he failed to remember who was the Chairman of NCTE at that time. He deposed that the SRC has issued rejection order to the institution and he has sent copies of rejection order to the NCTE headquarters. This witness has also stated 132 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 that he used to attend the meeting at NCTE headquarters, Delhi whenever he was called to attend the same. He stated that the accused no.1 discussed with him about the FIR lodged against the institution for about 2 to 3 times. He also stated that at one occasion, the accused no.1 over phone discussed with him about the FIR lodged against the institution and the accused no.1 summoned him to his office at Delhi to discuss regarding the said FIR. He stated that as on the date of said FIR, accused no.1 was the Vice-chairman of NCTE and admitted that in the said FIR, the name of accused no.1 is not appearing either as an accused, witness or complainant. He identified the endorsement made by accused no.1 in Ex.P28 as Ex.P28(b) and the accused no.1 as a Vice-chairman of NCTE, Delhi has every right to enquire about the proceedings of Southern Regional Committee. He feigned his ignorance as to whether on 16/8/2006 Southern Regional Committee office has taken any decision in 133 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 respect of the institution. The rest of the cross- examination is with respect to the investigation conducted by the CBI officials. The learned counsel for the accused no.2 in the cross-examination of this witness has elicited that institution had submitted application seeking for recognition to SRC committee and at that time, he was not there in the office. He admitted that as per norms, Rs.15,00,000/- is to be deposited for starting three courses but denied that Ex.P100 was the FD receipts which was submitted along with application seeking for recognition by the institution. He was confronted with his deposition in a case lodged by Jalahalli Police as per Ex.D3 and denied suggestion that the institution has not submitted 3 DDs along with application. He stated that he has seen photo copies of the said FD certificates in the office file of the SRC. He stated that the copy of Ex.P122 was sent to SRC to implement the same and failed to comment 134 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 on a question that Ex.P122 was sent by the accused no.2 to the institution.
91. The prosecution has also got examined Section Officer of Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru one Smt. Mamta Kukreti as PW.37 who deposed that form July 2004 to June 2006, she worked as Section Officer in SRC, Bengaluru and there-afterwards she was transferred to NCTE headquarters, Delhi as a Section Officer of Appeal section. She deposed that under the said capacity, she dealt with file of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution and identified the said file as Ex.P125. She deposed that as per the instructions of her senior official, she has put up a note on 31/7/2008 and as per the said note, once decision has been taken by the Appellate Authority, it shall be treated as final and concerned Regional Committee is bound to implement the said decision. The note to the effect that Regional Committee has no authority to call for the records from the 135 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Appellate Authority is identified and got marked as Ex.P125(a). She also got identified the notes put up by her to the effect that a fair letter for signature of Member Secretary was put up by her at page No.13 and 14 and same was marked as Ex.P125(c) and Ex.P125(d). She identified the letter dated 16/08/2006 of NCTE headquarters, Delhi through which it was directed to the Regional Director of Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru to implement the orders passed by the Appellate Authority in respect of the institution and send compliance report. She identified the said letter as Ex.P39 which was signed by the Mr. V.C.Tiwari the then Member Secretary of NCTE Headquarters Delhi. In the cross-examination conducted by the accused no.1, this witness admitted a suggestion that the duty of the Section Officer is only to put up the file and when she put up note Ex.P125(a), she was Section Officer of Appeal Section, NCTE, Delhi. She admitted that before putting up the said note, she 136 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 has not gone through the entire file of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution and as per the directions of the then Under Secretary and Member Secretary of NCTE, Delhi, she has put up said note. She identified the entire notes dated 31/7/20o06 as prepared by her and admitted that the accused no.1 has not been consulted by her to prepare the said notes. The process of deciding the appeal by the Appeal Committee has been elicited from the mouth of this witness. It has been elicited from the mouth of this witness that the order of remand back of Appeal Committee is also one of its decision and in case of such direction, the Appeal Committee may direct for inspection and to reconsider the case and based upon the report of the inspection committee, the SRC will take decision. This witness has stated that the Southern Regional Committee may grant or reject the permission and if it is rejected, the second appeal will lie to the Appeal Committee of NCTE headquarters. She stated that 137 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 when she was Section Officer of the Appeal Committee, she has not come across any recommendations of Appeal Committee for inspection and the names of inspecting committee will be decided by the concerned Regional Committees but failed to state the provision under which said decision will be taken.
92. This witness has further stated that the Regional Committee will take final decision on the report of the inspection committee and in respect of the institution, she failed to state whether any decision has been taken by Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru. It has been elicited from her mouth as to what happened to the appeals preferred by the institution and denied a suggestion that CBI officials have not recorded her statement relating to the case.
93. The prosecution has also got examined one Smt. Jojiyna Lakra who worked as a Section Officer at Appeal Division, Delhi as PW.38. She 138 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 deposed as to the dealing with the appeals preferred by the institution and identified the entire file as Ex.P126. On perusal of the said file, she deposed that there was no NOC from State Government to start courses and the said institution had no proper infrastructure to run teaching courses. She deposed that in the year 2003, the application seeking for recognition was rejected by the SRC which made the institution to file an appeal. She deposed that said institution had furnished 3 fake FD receipts of Rs.5 lakhs each to the SRC, Bengaluru and represented that the institution has been inspected eventhough there was no such inspection till 2004. She identified the note put up by her as to the rejection of the appeal on the ground that there was no inspection, and also for submitting fake FD receipts and also for not obtaining the NOC from the State Government. She identified the notes prepared by her pertaining to the appeal preferred by the institution as per Ex.P126(a). She identified the approvals made by the 139 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary of NCTE, Delhi to the effect that the Member Secretary V.C.Tewari directed her to speak with him with respect to Ex.P126(a). She further identified the note put up by her on 1/2/2005 as per the directions of Member Secretary, NCTE headquarters, Delhi as Ex.P126(c) and she proposed to remand back the case of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution to Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru. She deposed that Member Secretary has decided to keep the said matter before next Appeal Committee and at that time, accused no.1 was the Vice-Chairman of NCTE. She deposed that at that time, there was no Chair Person for NCTE as accused no.1 was looking after the official matters of NCTE headquarters, Delhi. She further deposed that the accused no.1 directed Regional Director of SRC, Bengaluru to be present at the time of Appeal Committee meeting and her note as to the rejection of appeal of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education 140 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Institution, Bengaluru is not required so also her proposal to remand back is also rejected by the accused no.1 in the capacity of Vice-chair person of NCTE who identified the same as Ex.P126(b).
94. She further deposed that the said note was signed by Sri V.C.Tewari and Sri A.K.Shukla, Deputy Secretary of NCTE headquarters, New Delhi. Accordingly, a letter was sent to Regional Director of Southern Regional Committee asking him to be present at the time of Appeal Committee meeting and said note was marked as per Ex.P126(e). She further deposed that the case of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution was discussed in the Appeal Committee meeting held on 18/2/2005 and she has put up a note for spot inspection of the institution for verification of the claims by the SRC and committee recommended that case of the institution be remanded back to Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru with a direction that case be reprocessed by causing an inspection. She deposed 141 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 that said note was submitted to the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson i.e., before accused no.1 who was looking after the said matters. She identified page no.7 of note sheet wherein the above said notes were put up by her as Ex.P126(f). She also identified the note put up by her on 3/3/2005 as Ex.P126(g) and deposed that Vice-chairman has raised query regarding inspection and she clarified that no such inspection was conducted as per the records of the Southern Regional Committee. She also deposed that Vice-chairperson has made a note to bring the minutes before putting up individual cases on 9/3/2005 and finally the case of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution was remanded back to the Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru.
95. She further deposed that on 19/10/2005, Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution has preferred second appeal as against the order of Southern Regional Committee dated 18/10/2005 which rejected its application for recognition for 142 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 conducting teaching courses. She identified the note put up by her in the form of draft agenda for approval on 21/10/2005 as per Ex.P125(e). She identified the file which was placed before the 7 th Appeal Committee bearing No.91-1/2005- appeal as Ex.P127 an she also identified the note put up by her on 26/5/2005 as Ex.P127(a). She further deposed that the Appeal Committee decided to form a Committee of Inspection in respect of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution and she has put up a report of Sub-committee of the Appeal Committee to cause inspection to Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution on 17/11/2005 and same is marked as Ex.P125(g). She also deposed that she also put up report of the Sub- committee of Appeal Committee on 17/11/2005 along with pamphlets which were already marked as Ex.P43 and Ex.P44. She identified the said report as Ex.P45 and identified her signature on the note dated 29/11/2005 as Ex.P45(b). She further 143 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 identified the note put up by Member Secretary, NCTE headquarters, Delhi for rejection of appeal and deposed that the Vice-chairman had made a note for discussion with Member Secretary as per Ex.P125(i) and Ex.P125(j). She deposed that Member Secretary after discussing with Vice-chairperson decided to put up the matter on the next meeting of the Appeal Committee.
96. She further deposed and identified as to the file bearing No.91-2/2005-Appeal which got marked as Ex.P128 and deposed that on 29/11/2005, she has put up a note for consideration of the appeals in its 8 th Appeal Committee meeting as per Ex.P128(a)and got identified her signature as per Ex.P128(b). She also identified the note put up on 6/12/2005 to hold meeting on 13th and 14th December 2005 and identified that under Ex.P128(c), she has put up note as found in sl.no.3 and same was marked as Ex.P128(d). She further deposed that as per 144 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Ex.P125(k), she put up note at page no.4 on 25/3/2006 and also got identified para no.2 and 3 as Ex.P125(l). She deposed that as per Ex.P125(l), she made a proposal for rejection which was not considered and it was decided to hear the case of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution as de nova in next meeting. She further identified the note of Member Secretary dated 21/3/2006 to the effect that Appeal Committee did not agree to consider the case of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution on de nova basis, and decided to take decision on the appeal of the institution in the light of recommendation of the Appeal Committee in its meeting held on 8/11/2005 and 14/11/2005.
97. In the cross-examination, it has been elicited from the mouth of this witness that the Appeal Committee decision will be communicated to the concerned institution as well as Regional Committee and Regional Committee constitutes the 145 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 members of the inspection committee. This witness has stated that in a rarest of rare cases, the Appeal Committee constitutes the members of the Inspecting Committee. With regard to the appeal preferred by the Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution this witness stated that the first appeal of the institution was remanded back to the Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru with direction to cause inspection. He further stated that, the Appeal Committee has appointed the members of the Inspecting Committee so as to cause inspection to the institution and admitted that his role was confined only to co-ordinate with the members of the Inspecting Committee and to inform them as to their visit to the institution. He stated that he himself has red the inspection report and the accused no.1 passed the orders in favour of the institution. He stated that the accused no.1 has not passed any orders of approval in respect of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution during his tenure 146 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 and on 9/6/2006, he was not in the appeal division. He admitted that he has no knowledge about the present case after his tenure and only up to 21/3/2006, he has handled the case relating to Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution. With respect to his noting dated 17/1/2005, he stated that same are based upon first appeal of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution and as per his notes dated 1/2/2005, 1/3/2005 and 3/3/2005 the matter was proposed to remand back to the Southern Regional Committee. He has stated that as per the instructions of Under Secretary, NCTE headquarters, Delhi, he has put up note dated 26/5/2005 and he has discussed the same with Member Secretary. He admitted suggestion that the NCTE headquarters Delhi had constituted another Inspecting Committee in respect to the institution and he has gone through the report of the said committee. He stated that there is no recommendation or order by the accused no.1 147 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 granting an approval in favour of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution in Ex.P128 and other than Ex.P125 to Ex.P128, he has not seen any documents containing the order passed by accused no.1 in favour of the institution. it has been elicited that he has seen report of the second Inspecting Committee constituted by NCTE Delhi and he has made notes in respect of the said report. He further stated that on the basis of the Second Inspecting Committee Report it was decided to hear the case of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution denova and NCTE Appellate Authority has no authority ordering for denova enquiry. He further stated that CBI officials have recorded his statement and the Appeal Committee of NCTE Delhi has taken decision approving for D.Ed., course of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution subsequent to his tenure. He admitted that he was not in NCTE, when Inspecting Committee consisting of accused no.3 to 5 visited the institution, and also 148 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 he admitted that he has no idea as to whom the report consisting of accused no.3 to 5 was submitted. It has been elicited that other than Ex.P125 to Ex.P128, and other correspondence he has no information as to influence made by accused no.1 in obtaining the approval for the institution. He further denied that his statement is not recorded by CBI officials.
98. In the cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for the accused no.2, this witness has admitted that he has not personally verified three original FD receipts of Rs.5 lakhs each submitted by Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution and also as to the action initiated against the said institution in respect of furnishing fake FD receipts. He admitted that he has not seen any document which revels influence of accused no.2 in getting approval of courses for Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution.
149 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
99. The prosecution has also got examined one Mr.Mrithyunjay Jha who worked as Under Secretary on deputation in NCTE from April 2005 to 2009 as PW.39. He deposed as to the process of decision of appeals preferred by the institution against the order of refusal of recognition by the Regional Committees. He deposed that the said Appeal Committee is chaired by Vice-chairman of NCTE. He has deposed as to the procedure of disposal of appeals by the Appellate Committee and drawing of minutes of the committee as to the decision on the appeals and also communication of the said decisions to the concerned institution. He deposed that Appeal Committee can take 3 types of decisions while disposing the appeals i.e., to allow, to dismiss or to remand the matter to the Regional Committee. He deposed that once the appeal is decided there is no provision to reconsider the said appeal by the Appellate Committee except in 150 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 exceptional cases i.e., due to intervention of the court order.
100. With respect to the Appeals preferred by the Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution, this witness has deposed that once at the recommendation of the Appeal Committee inspection of the institution was held and appeal preferred by the institution was rejected. There- afterwards the acting Chairman of NCTE headquarters, Delhi and Chairman of Appeal Committee i.e., accused no.1 ordered for re- inspection of the institution which instance he has not come across at any pint of time. He deposed that under receipt memo dated 6/4/2009, he has furnished certain documents and identified the file relating to appeal preferred by the Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution in the year 2005 as Ex.P125. He identified the file pertaining to the appeals preferred by the institution in the year 2004 as Ex.P126 and the file relating to 7th Appeal 151 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Committee meeting as Ex.P127 and 8 th Appeal Committee meeting as Ex.P128. With respect to the appeal preferred by the institution as against the order dated 18/10/2005 passed by Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru he deposed that as per Ex.P125(e) - proceedings were drawn and Appellate Committee ordered for inspection of the institution and in this regard, minutes of the Appeal Committee meeting held on 7/11/2005 to 9/11/2005 bearing signature of accused no.1 identified as Ex.P125(i). He identified the agenda no.1 and 10 of the said meeting were relating to the institution and as per the minutes of the meeting, Ex.P127(i), a decision was taken to inspect the institution and there-afterwards based upon the report to take further decision on the appeals preferred by Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution. He identified his office note dated 11/11/2005 signed by accused no.1 out of Ex.P125 under which the members of the Inspecting 152 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Committee were chosen and schedule of the inspection was fixed as per Ex.P125(m) and also identified the signature of the accused as Ex.125(m) (I). He deposed that he has made note in Ex.P125(m) to the effect that 'please get the letter enclosed issued urgently and keep in record' as Ex.P125(m)
(ii) and also he identified the letter dated 11/11/2005 issued by him to the members of the Inspecting Committee to cause inspection of the institution as per Ex.P42. He identified the letter dated 16/11/2005 issued by Section Officer of the institution as to the visit to the institution as Ex.P125 (n) and submitted that after visit, the said Committee submitted its report as per Ex.P45 noting that the institution has no infrastructure or other facility to run the courses. He deposed that based upon the said report, the Member Secretary has recommended to reject the appeal and note as as per Ex.P125(a) came to be made and identified the endorsement of accused no.1 as per Ex.P125(j). He 153 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 deposed that said matter was discussed by Member Secretary and it was decided to place the same before next meeting of the Appeal Committee and said note is got marked as Ex.P125(o). He further deposed that as per the directions of the accused no.1, the matter was placed before the next meeting of the Appellate Committee to be held on 13/14.12.2005 in which it was decided to reject the appeal preferred by the institution. He identified the minutes of the said meeting as Ex.P128(e) bearing signature of the accused no.1 on all pages. He further deposed that as per Ex.P128(e), all the 3 appeals preferred by the institution decided to be rejected. He also identified the note put up by him on 14/12/2005 as Ex.P125(f) and also note dated 3/1/2006 put up by him seeking approval of Vice- chairman in respect of the minutes of the meeting dated 13/14.12.2005 as corrected by accused no.1 on 2/1/2006 at Ex.P126(g). He specifically identified the note put up by accused no.1 to 154 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 approve the minutes of the said meeting except in respect of sl.no.35, 41, 42 and 43 which have been withheld for certain modification for which the case file was provided to Vice-chairperson. The said note is marked as Ex.P128(h). He deposed that he has put up note on 6/1/2006 as per Ex.P128(i) and under the said note, the approval of Chairperson NCTE was sought. He deposed that except 4 cases mentioned in the previous note, the approval was given in respect of the other matters and the Chairperson by note dated 9/1/2006 made observation that the minutes of the meeting covering all the cases considered therein be concurred by the members of the Appeal Committee holding a meeting on 13/1/2006 and submit for approval of the Chairperson. He further deposed that a direction was issued to the Vice-chairperson to hold the meeting and identified the said observations as Ex.P128(j). He specifically deposed that Vice- chairperson kept the file with himself till 19/1/2006 155 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 and on 19/1/2006 he made observation to approve corrected version of the minutes. The said note got identified as Ex.P128(k). He deposed that on 13/1/2006, the Vice-chairperson did not hold the meeting as such Dr.Shardindu, Chairperson of NCTE himself decided to hold meeting with all Appeal Committee members on 20/1/2006. He identified the notice issued by him in respect of the meeting of the Appeal Committee members with Chairperson as Ex.P125(j) and the minutes of the meeting dated 20/1/2006 held by Dr.Shardindu to finalize the decision on appeal considered in the Appeal Committee meeting held on 7 th to 9th and 13th and 14th December 2005 as Ex.P128(l). He deposed that he has attended the said meeting along with two members of the Appeal Committee and made observations and suggested certain amendments in the minutes of the above said two Appeal Committee meeting which are signed by Dr.S.S.Rathi and Professor L.C.Singh. He deposed that said members 156 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 advised to finalize minutes of the Appeal Committee meeting by all the members of the Committee within 2-3 days of holding a meeting and identified the said note dated 20/1/2006 as Ex.P128(m) and identified the notes put up by him under Ex.P128(m) for approval of the Chairperson as approved by the Vice- chairperson of the Appeal Committee and also amendments suggested by two members of the Appeal Committee. He deposed that said note was put up by Deputy Secretary on 27/1/2005 to Member Secretary of NCTE and between 21/1/2006 to 3/6/2006t the accused no.1 Sri S.K.Thakur became acting Chairman of NCTE. He identified the minutes submitted for approval of the acting Chairperson found at page no.8 of Ex.P128 and also the observation made by the accused no.1 to the effect that legal validity of the meeting of the Chairperson with non official members of the Appeal Committee in the light of decision of General Body or any other provision of the Act, Rules and 157 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 regulations. Said note is marked as Ex.P128(n). He deposed that in response to the said observation, he has put up note as per Ex.P128 (o) to the effect that there is no infirmity in conveying the meeting of the Appeal Committee members by the Chairperson so as to enable him to decide the cases of appeal. He has deposed that on 10/2/2006, he has made a note as per Ex.P127(k) and identified his signature as Ex.P127(k) (I) and further deposed that at page 12 to 17, the Deputy Secretary and Member Secretary of NCTE by their notes submitted the minutes for approval. He has identified the observations made by accused no.1 at page 18 of Ex.P127 under which he approved the minutes of the meeting except the case of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution and Gaziabad Institute of Technology. The said notes are got identified by him as Ex.P127(l). He further deposed that under the note at Ex.P127(l), the accused had ordered for denova hearing in respect of the above said institution. This witness with respect 158 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 to the note put up by him on 9/5/2006 marked as Ex.P127(m) deposed that the said note is to the effect that the above said two institution appeals were included in the agenda for the meeting held on 13/14.03.2006 but the members observed that the decisions in respect of the said two institutions was already taken by committee and denova hearing as proposed by the accused no.1 was not agreed by the Appeal Committee and no further hearing was given to the representation of those two institutions, and the decision taken by the Appeal Committee in its earlier meeting was reiterated. He further deposed that as per Ex.P127(m), he has put up a note to take decisions on the appeals submitted by the above two institutions as already there was a delay. He further deposed that the original files maintained with Regional Committee as well as appeals filed by the above said two institutions were handed over to the Chairperson office and in respect of Ex.P127(m), the accused no.1 had made observations "In respect 159 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 of 'A' i.e., Gaziabad Institute of Management Technology, Gaziabad orders be issued as per the observations of the Appeal Committee". He further identified the note put up by him on 21/3/2006 in respect of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution to the effect that Appeal Committee did not agree to consider the case of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution for denova hearing and proposed to take decision in the light of recommendations of the Appeal Committee in the meeting held on 8/11/2005 and 14/12/2005. He further deposed that to the said note, the Member Secretary of NCTE, Delhi concurred and the same was sent to the accused no.1 for necessary decisions. He identified the said note as Ex.P125(p) and his signature as Ex.P125(p)(i). He further got identified the note put up by accused no.1 on 5/6/2006 in Ex.P125 as per Ex.P125(q) and deposed that under the said note, the accused no.1 directed to conduct re-inspection of Dr. Radhakrishna 160 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Teacher's Education Institution consisting of Visiting Committee members accused no.3 to 5 and directed to assign the date of inspection as 7/6/2006. He deposed that in response to the said direction, he has put up a note as per Ex.P125(r) under which he has submitted draft order informing the accused no.3 to 5 to conduct re-inspection of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution and identified the notes dated 5/6/2006 as per Ex.P125(s). He further deposed that the said notice was issued individually to the accused no.3 to 5.
101. This witness has further deposed that note put up by accused no.1 to consider the report of the re-inspection of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution and directed to issue orders on the appeals filed by the Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution on the said date itself. He deposed that the committee consisting of accused no.3 to 5 submitted report recommending for recognition in respect of D.Ed., course with intake of 161 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 50 seats and also recommended to reject the recognition in respect of B.Ed., and C.P.Ed., courses. He deposed and identified the said note put up by accused no.1 on 9/6/2006 as Ex.P125(t) and also identified his signature. The report accompanied with the above said note from pages 111 to 139 are got marked as Ex.P125 (u). He further deposed that on 9/6/2006, he has made a note as per Ex.P125(u) and identified his signature. He deposed that through Ex.P125 (v), he has put up a note that before any orders may be passed, it is necessary to take decision on the appeal of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution and deposed that files of these appeals were submitted to the Chairperson and recommended to submit re- inspection report to him along with concerned records of the institution. He deposed that under note Ex.P125(v), he submitted to take into account earlier inspection report dated 17/11/2005, recommendations of Appeal Committee in its 162 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 meeting dated 14/12/2005 and fresh report of visit made by accused no.3 to 5 who visited Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution on 7/6/2006 as there was a contradiction between earlier inspection report and the report submitted by accused no.3 to 5. He deposed that the said note was submitted to Deputy Secretary who in turn placed same before the Member Secretary and on the very same day, the accused no.1 based upon the said note has made observations rejecting the appeal in respect of B.Ed., and C.P.Ed., courses and accepting the appeal in respect of D.Ed., courses. He further deposed that in respect of D.Ed., course, matter was ordered to be remanded back to the Southern Regional Committee and directed to issue orders on the day itself by returning the files to the institution. He deposed that as per the approval of the accused no.1, draft orders were prepared and issued to Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution on 12/6/2006 itself and on the very same 163 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 day, the accused no.1 has approved the said order. He identified the above said note put up by accused no.1 on 9/6/2006 as Ex.P125(w) and deposed that on 12/06/2006, the accused no.1 directed to issue the orders as per his recommendations dated 9/6/2006. He further deposed that the draft of the said order was prepared by him and approved by accused no.1 which is found at page no.8 and same is marked as Ex.P125(x).
102. This witness has further deposed that on the basis of the recommendations of accused no.1 on 12/6/2006, three separate orders came to be issued in respect of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution and got marked the said orders as Ex.P125(y). With regard to the 20 th Council meeting of NCTE held in the year 2007, he deposed that Dr.Rathi was member of the Appeal Committee and also member of Council raised the issue before the Council that in respect of certain institutions decisions are not taken in accordance with 164 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 recommendations of the Appeal Committee. He further deposed that the NCTE headquarters, Delhi took cognizance of the said order and reconsidered the Appeal Committee by dissolving the earlier Appeal Committee consisting of accused no.1 as a Chairperson.
103. In the cross-examination conducted by learned counsel for the accused no.1, it has been elicited that, appeal procedures are contained in Section 18 of the NCTE Act and also the procedures are laid down in NCTE Rules. He deposed that, Rule 10 provides for appeal and Rule 11 lays down procedure for disposal of the appeal. He deposed that on some occasions, accused no.1 called him personally in respect of certain proceedings but failed to remember whether he had direct conversations with accused no.1 in respect of Dr.RTEI matters. He further stated that the Regional Committee is the final authority as to according permission to run any courses and the accused no.1 165 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 did not approve recognition in favour of Dr.RTEI directly but indirectly he has recommended for such recognition. It is also elicited from the mouth of this witness that the accused no.1 was Chairperson of Appeal Committee in the month of November 2005, whereas Dr.Rathi, Prof. L.C.Singh and Sri V.C.Tiwari were the members of Appeal Committee during the said period. This witness in the cross-examination further stated as to the notes put up by accused no.1 in Ex.P125 to Ex.P128. He admitted that, as per the directions of accused no.1, the Deputy Secretary has forwarded note found in page no.4 of Ex.P128(e) and there-afterwords matter was referred to accused no.1 through proper channel who recommended for corrections in the minutes of the meeting. He specifically stated that the matters at sl.no.35. 41 to 43 appearing in Ex.P128(h) relates to Dr.RTEI and Gaziabad Institute. He admitted a suggestion that on 27/1/2006, the accused no.1 was appointed as Chairperson of NCTE with 166 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 immediate effect and Dr.Shardindu was Chairperson of NCTE prior to that. He also admitted that there was a difference of opinion between accused no.1 and Dr.Shardindu in respect of administration of NCTE and deposed that accused no.1 was not consistent in decision making. Further, this witness has deposed in his cross-examination that as on the date of conveying meeting on 20/1/2006, the appeals filed by Dr.RTEI were not pending before Appeal Committee and the said meeting was conveyed by the chairperson of NCTE. He voluntarily deposed that, without the decision of the Appeal Committee, the chairperson cannot decide the appeal and in case of Dr.RTEI appeals, same were decided by the appeal committee and submitted to the Chairperson for his approval. He deposed that, as sought by accused no.1 in the capacity of Vice- chairperson of NCTE, he has put up note as Ex.P128(o) and through member secretary he has given his opinion. He denied that when he put up 167 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 note as per Ex.P128(o), he was acting under the directions of Dr.Shardindu. It has been further elicited that, the member secretary has made notes as to powers of Chairperson at page no.16 and 17 of Ex.P127 and denied suggestion that denova decision is also the decision of appeal committee and he voluntarily stated that it is the sole decision of accused no.1 as per Ex.P127(l). This witness has also stated that he has gone through the representation submitted by Dr.RTEI to the Ministry of HRD dated 25/5/2006, letter addressed by Additional Private Secretary of Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India dated 26/5/2006 addressed to the accused no.1 and also gone through the note submitted by the Under Secretary of Human Resource Management dated 29/5/2006. He further deposed that, as per Ex.P125(q), the accused no.1 has made notes which is opposed by Dr.S.S.Rathi in 20th Council Meeting and no decision was taken in the said meeting. He admitted that, 168 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 under Ex.P125(q), there is no direction for re- inspection but there is a direction to depute another visiting team for making inspection in respect of Dr.RTEI. This witness in the cross-examination further stated that, only in the matters of appeal, the National Council for Teachers Education, headquarters, Delhi has authority to disagree with the decision of South Regional Committee and except in the matter of grant of recognition in respect of other maters, the decision of South Regional Committee is final. He denied suggestion that throughout his tenure at NCTE, he acted against accused no.1.
104. In the cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for the accused no.2, 4 and 5, this witness has stated that, based upon the re- inspection report submitted by Visiting Committee consisting of accused no.3 to 5, it was decided to remand back matter to South Regional Committee in respect of D.Ed., course of Dr.RTEI and the accused 169 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 no.3 to 5 have given report stating that D.Ed., course can be conducted at Dr.RTEI. He admitted that, accused no.4 and 5 were entrusted with duty to submit report after inspection of Dr.RTEI.
105. The prosecution has also got examined Deputy Secretary of NCTE Sri L.R.Agarwal as PW.40 who deposed as to the files he has handled during his tenure. He deposed that he has dealt with appeal files which were pending before NCTE during his tenure from December 2005 to March 2007. He deposed that during his tenure, there were 50 files pertaining to appeal filed by various institution and at that time, accused no.1 Sri S.K.Thakur was Vice- chairperson of NCTE and Chairperson of the Appeal Committee and identified him before the court. He deposed that the appeals filed by the institution firstly came up before the concerned section and his section will scrutinize the appeals with regard to the court fee and administrative aspects and put up the same before the Chairperson of the Appeal 170 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Committee seeking for fixing the hearing dates. He deposed that the 8th meeting of Appeal Committee was held on 13/14.12.2005 and minutes of the said meeting were drawn on 14/12/2005 and Under Secretary has submitted the said minutes of the meeting to him. He deposed that he forwarded the said minutes of the meeting to the Member Secretary who in turn submitted the same to the Chairperson of Appeal Committee for his approval. He deposed that Chairperson raised query to submit each file of each institution for consideration along with minutes for approval. He deposed that on 27/12/2005, the Under Secretary submitted as to the files and Chairperson made certain corrections in the draft minutes and returned the files to the branch which carried out corrections and submitted fair copies of the minutes for approval of the Chairperson to consider the same and approval of cases except 4 identified cases in respect of which minutes were withheld for certain modifications. He further 171 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 deposed that Chairperson of the Appeal Committee passed orders to submit the said cases for approval of Chairperson, NCTE to approve the final minutes. He deposed that Chairperson returned the files stating that proceedings relating to those 4 cases also should be finalised if necessary by holding a meeting of Appeal Committee on 13/1/2006. He deposed that on the said date, the meeting was not held and minutes were not finalised. He deposed that on 19/1/2006, the Vice-chairperson cleared the above said 4 cases and passed instructions to got approve from Chairperson, NCTE. He deposed that in the meanwhile the Chairperson, NCTE held meeting of two members of Appeal Committee and in Appeal Committee, there were 4 members and notice was issued to all the members but only two members attended the meeting who were not official members. He deposed that official members namely Chairperson of the Appeal Committee and Member Secretary had not attended the said meeting and 172 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 observations made by two members was conveyed to the Under Secretary who also assisted the meeting. He further deposed that Under Secretary had finalised the minutes of the meeting which were approved by the Chairperson and copy of minutes of the meeting were sent to two non official members, and so also the Chairperson of NCTE. He deposed as to submitting the file on 20/1/2006 stating that the minutes has to be approved by Chairman of Appeal Committee and observations of two members may be submitted to the Chairperson for approval. He deposed that before file was cleared from the level of Deputy Secretary and Member Secretary, there was a change in encumbrency at the level of Chairperson, NCTE. He deposed that Vice- chairperson and Chairperson of Appeal Committee became acting Chairperson of the NCTE and the file for approval of minutes were submitted on 3.2.2006 to the acting Chairperson of NCTE with notes of Member Secretary who raised query as to legal 173 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 validity of the meeting held by former Chairperson with two non-official members of the Appeal Committee and the Under Secretary noted that there is no legal infirmity in holding the said meeting and submitted the file to him. He further deposed that the Deputy Secretary recorded a note stating the appeal provision in the NCTE Act, prescribed procedure, statutory rules and journey leading to delegation of powers of the Council to the Chairperson. He further deposed that when the above said note was submitted to the Member Secretary, he desired discussion and though the matter was discussed but there was no record for such discussion. He further deposed that Member Secretary recorded the note almost disagreeing with the Deputy Secretary stating that the note of the Deputy Secretary is only an academic one which can be taken later on if Chairperson so desires. He deposed that Member Secretary made two suggestions for alternative courses for consideration 174 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 of Chairperson and one of the suggestion was that Chairperson may call the meeting of the Appeal Committee and sort out the difference of opinion that other alternative is to decide the case by the Chairperson himself by recording disagreement with the differing members, and file was submitted to the Chairperson. He further deposed that Chairperson considered the proposal of the Member Secretary and took decision in respect of the institution to justify de nova hearing. He deposed that in the next meeting, the Appeal Committee decided since the committee has already taken decision on these cases, there is no necessity for de nova hearing including the case of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution.
106. This witness has also deposed as to the reference received from the office of Ministry of Human Resource Department pointing out some irregularities in conducting the inspection of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution. He 175 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 further deposed that in order to deal with those VIP references, it was decided to conduct fresh inspection and acting Chairperson constituted a visiting team 3 members consisting of one subject expert, one expert of secondary education and one expert of elementary education. The accused no.1 constituted the above said committee consisting of accused no.3 to 5 and on receipt of the report of said committee, final view was taken by the Chairperson recommending for D.Ed., course and in respect of B.Ed., and C.P.Ed., it was rejected. He further deposed that it was decided that based on the findings of new committee, the case of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution may be remanded back to the Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru for appropriate action. This witness has identified a note put up by him on 10/2/2006 expressing his opinion as per Ex.P127(n).
176 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
107. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that for a brief period, he also co-opted as a member of the Appeal Committee and in general, he worked as a Deputy Secretary in NCTE. He deposed that Member Secretary, Vice-chairperson and Chairperson of NCTE are his superior officers and Under Secretary, Section Officer and Assistant are his subordinates. It has been elicited that during his tenure, the accused no.1 as a Chairperson of Appeal Committee and Vice-chairperson of NCTE had not took any illegal decision as he had no such occasions. He further stated that the de nova hearing is also legal one and failed to state which was the final authority who took decision in respect of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution. This witness admitted that he has not made any adverse remarks as per Ex.P127(k) as against the accused no.1.
108. The counsel for accused no.2, 4 and 5 adopted the above said cross-examination whereas 177 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 accused no.3 has not chosen to cross-examine this witness.
109. The prosecution has also got examined two students by name Smt. M. Kalamani and Smt. K.Bhagyalakshi who completed D.Ed., course at Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution during the year 2006. They deposed that they came to know about the Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution through one Thomas Raj (PW.29) and the fees of the course was Rs.80,000/- for both years which was paid to accused no.2. They have deposed that at that time, accused no.2 was member of the institution and they have paid Rs.10,000/- towards accommodation, food, hostel, mess and also towards exams fees to the accused no.2 who has not issued receipts for the same. They deposed that one Mr. Jayaram was Principal of the said institution during the year 2006 and apart from him, there were two teaching staff. They deposed that one Mr.Suresh was Lecturer in the said 178 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 institution and classes were conducted at Devanahalli for about 3 months and Mr. Jayaram arranged for their accommodation at college when classes were conducted at Bengaluru. They further deposed that first year examination was held in the year 2007 and they have not received hall tickets officially and on the day of examination itself, they received hall tickets at the intervention of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru. They deposed that the institution had not allowed them to write the examination as such they approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. They further deposed that during the year 2008, they have paid Rs.10,000/- as exam fee but not received receipts. They deposed that the two staffs were conducting classes for all five subjects and they never heard the teaching faculty by name Ramaswamy, Kantharaju, Vijaykumar, Venkatesh Gowda, B.N.Nagaraju and C.Manjunath and they have not seen them in their institution. PW.41 specifically deposed that since the 179 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 institution had no approval to conduct the D.Ed., course, they approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and said fact came to their knowledge at the time of examination itself. They deposed that as per the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, D.Ed., completion certificate was obtained and after completion of D.Ed., course they got job in private institution. They identified the accused no.2.
110. In the cross-examination, PW.41 stated that she paid Rs.80,000/- to Mr.Jayaram in cash in the presence of accused no.2 and apart from the said amount, she had paid separate fees towards the exam. She denied suggestion that no such fee was paid and admitted that practical classes were conducted regularly. She deposed that after completion of the D.Ed., course as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, she received completion certificate. PW.42 in the cross- examination stated that she had paid Rs.80,000/- to 180 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Mr.Theerthe Gowda who has not issued any receipt. She also stated that they approached Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and obtained completion certificate. It has been elicited that the Principal was the administration incharge for D.Ed., course and there was complete teaching faculty. PW.42 has stated that there was only lady who was incharge of hostel facility.
111. The prosecution has also got examined one Sri S.N. Jagannath who worked as Computer Operator at Canara Bank Circle of Bengaluru who was present during the inspection and drawing of mahazar at Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution situated at Vishwanathapura, Devanahalli, Bengaluru as PW.43.
112. He in his examination in chief deposed that on 28/6/2008 an inspection was conducted in the above said institution in his presence and also in the presence of CBI officials and other police officials. He deposed that there were no classes 181 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 conducted in the institution and same was vacant and 5 computers were not in a working condition. He deposed that there were no students and teaching staff at that time and there was no laboratory. He deposed that the facilities in psychology related to Educational Psychology are inadequate and there were no books in the library and there was no gymnasium and multipurpose hall in the premises. He stated that the proceedings was drawn after conducting the inspection as per Ex.P115 and identified his signature as Ex.P115(c). He deposed that the entire proceedings was videographed as per Ex.P120 and identified his signature as Ex.P120(a)
(i). He identified the cover in which the DVD was kept as Ex.P119 and also certificate under Section 65B as Ex.P121. He deposed that the proceedings of DVD were conducted on 14/10/2009 which bears his signature and identified the same as Ex.P118. He further deposed that during the inspection the photographs of the premises were taken as per 182 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Ex.P118(b) to Ex.P118(g) and identified his signature appearing on the back side of the photograph. He deposed that during drawing the proceedings, the IO has played DVD- Ex.P120.
113. In the cross-examination, he stated that along with him, there were 3 officials and one bank official at the time of conducting the inspection. He stated that they went to the spot in a car and admitted that videographer did not accompanied them. He stated that said videographer was not introduced to him by the CBI officials and he has not seen the payment of remuneration made to him. It has been elicited that the equipment's in lab were in bad condition and he do not have knowledge of particular books to be kept in library so also about the chemical. He admitted that he has not made efforts to switch on the computers but stated that on seeing the computers, they were not in working condition. He admitted suggestion that when inspection was conducted, the Investigating Officer 183 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 did not recorded his statement and the mahazar was not drawn at the spot. He denied suggestion that no videograph was conducted at the time of inspection. He denied suggestion that no photographs as per Ex.P118(b) to Ex.P118(g) were taken during the inspection but admitted that in the said photographs, the name of institution is not forthcoming.
114. In the cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for the accused no.2 this witness has stated that there were 3 officials and one bank employee at the time of inspection and there are some officials of the Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution. He admitted that the videograph was conducted in some of the selected places of the institution and local persons were not present at the time of mahazar. He stated that during the inspection, he has not come across the notice board in which it was mentioned that staff and students were on study tour. He denied 184 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 suggestion that there was full-pledged infrastructure in the institution and admitted that there was infrastructure to run the D.Ed., course but it was not in good condition. He denied the suggestion that he did not visited the institution at the time of conducting the mahazar. He failed to state whether his signature was obtained on the mahazar.
115. The prosecution has also got examined the Member Secretary of the NCTE headquarters, Delhi Sri V.C.Tewari as PW.44 who was there during the year 2005-06. He deposed that during the above said period, he was Member Secretary of NCTE as well as Member of the Appeal Committee. He deposed as to the process as to how appeal files will be dealt in the appeal section. He deposed with respect to the appeal files pertaining to Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution which is already marked as Ex.P125. He deposed that he has approved the draft agenda which was put up before the Appeal Committee and Appeal Committee 185 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 rejected the appeal preferred by Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution and it was decided to send visiting team for inspection to the institution which visited the institution and submitted its report recommending for rejection of all 3 courses. The said report was placed before accused no.1 who directed for de nova investigation and decided to constitute another team of inspection which is very unusual. He deposed that the Second Inspection Committee recommended for D.Ed., course and for rejection of other two courses of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution, the decision of which was conveyed to Southern Regional Committee. He further deposed that during the said period, the accused no.1 was acting Chairman of NCTE and Second Inspection Committee report was directly submitted to accused no.1 which was again unusual. He identified the note put up by accused no.1 recommending for D.Ed., course as per Ex.P125(w), and also identified the note made by 186 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 accused no.1 directing for issuance of orders accordingly as per Ex.P125(h). He deposed that after receiving the said orders, Southern Regional Committee wanted to have additional papers pertaining to Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution which was rejected by stating that the order of Appeal Committee is final. He deposed that subsequently the Southern Regional Committee granted recognition for D.Ed., course and rejected the recognition in respect of 2 other courses. He identified the said order dated 24/12/2012 as per Ex.P127(a) (i).
116. In the cross-examination, it has been elicited from this witness that the Southern Regional Committee is the final authority in respect of grant of recognition to the educational institutions and during the year 2005, either accused no.1 or Mr.Shardindu were the Chairperson of the NCTE headquarters, New Delhi. It has been elicited from the mouth of this witness that he used to approve 187 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 the agenda but denied a suggestion that the inspection team will assist the Appeal Committee. He deposed that during his tenure, there were 27 appeals before the Appeal Committee and he has put up files before accused no.1 seeking for fixing the hearing dates. He by referring to his notes stated that accused no.1 has fixed 13/14.12.2005 as date of hearing for the above said appeals and there- afterwards the files relating to the appeals was submitted to him through proper channel which has been subsequently referred by him to the Deputy Secretary, NCTE. It has been elicited that on 21/12/2005 draft of 8 th meeting of the Appeal Committee held on 13/14.12.2005 was directed to him and accused no.1 has made a note to put up the files along with individual institution files. Further, this witness has stated that at times, the accused no.1 used to make hasty decisions in respect of issuing orders and the notes made by the accused no. 1 on 4/1/2006 as per Ex.P128(h) are directly 188 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 submitted to the Deputy Secretary as on the said date, the witness was on leave. He admitted a suggestion that on 27/1/2006, the accused no.1 was acting as Chairperson of NCTE as services of Mr.Shardindu were suspended as per the orders of the court. He admitted that he put up a note at page no.8 of Ex.P128(h) (i) suggesting alternatives to the Chairperson of NCTE and admitted that during his tenure, the NCTE was under pressure of Ministry of Human Resource Development but denied that the said Ministry was indirectly having control over the NCTE. He admitted that the appeals of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution and Gaziabad Institute of Management were considered by the Appeal Committee and there is no bar to the said committee to recommend for denova hearing. He admitted a suggestion that on the pressure of the office of the HRM, the accused no.1 constituted committee consisting of accused no.3 to 5 and on his instruction, he made arrangements for travelling 189 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 and accommodation of the members of said committee. He further admitted that the intimation of the visit to the institution was communicated to the accused no.3 to 5 as per letter dated 5/6/2006 at Ex.D4, and according to it, accused no. 3 to 5 were asked to visit the institution within 48 hours from 7/6/2006 and they have submitted report after inspection. He stated that he has not gone through the said report and admitted that as per Ex.P125(y) and two orders dated 12/06/2006 he has referred matter of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution to Southern Regional Committee. The said orders were got marked as Ex.D5 and Ex.D6 and further admitted that as per the said orders, the Southern Regional Committee has granted recognition for D.Ed., course in respect of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution and if Southern Regional Committee grants any recognition, the NCTE has no role to play. 190 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
117. In the cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for the accused no.2, it has been elicited that there was no complaint against the institution by any students and he has no personal knowledge of infrastructure maintained by the said institution. He admitted that as per the report submitted by accused no.3 to 5, the Southern Regional Committee recommended for D.Ed., course.
118. The prosecution has also got examined one of the teacher of Chadrakala Vidyamandir, Vishwanathapuram, Bengaluru Mr. C.Thirumalesh as PW.45 who deposed that he was a Teacher in the said institution during 2005-06 of which accused no.2 was Secretary. He deposed that he was a witness to the panchanama conducted on 8/6/2005 at Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution and identified his signature as Ex.P115 (d). In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution is situated 6 KMs away from Chandrakala 191 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Vidyamandir and as per the directions of CBI officials, he witnessed videography but he has not seen the contents of the same. He admitted that he has not gone through the contents of Ex.P115, and same has not been narrated by him.
119. In the cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for he accused no.2, it is admitted that Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution is run by Trust and at the time of drawing panchanama as per Ex.P115, the accused no.2 was not on the spot and he has no knowledge about the infrastructure and also lodging of complaint by the students against the institution. The accused no.3 to 5 adopted the above said cross-examination of accused no.1 and 2.
120. The prosecution has also got examined the Investigating Officer by name Sri Ramchandran s/o R.Rajangam who was Police Inspector of ACB, Bengaluru during the year 2008. He deposed as to receiving of FIR registered by the SP of ACB, 192 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Bengaluru and identified his signature and also FIR as Ex.P130 and Ex.P130(a). He deposed that on 9/1/2009, he obtained search warrant and on the next day, he conducted search at the residential address of accused no.2 i.e., at No.141/B, 6 th Main, 4th Block, Rajaji Nagar, Bengaluru. He further deposed that he has handed over the search warrant to conduct the search at Smt.Indira Gandhi English High School, Byappanahalli to Mr. M.Raja as per Ex.P111. He also identified the proceedings of the said search as Ex.P112 and the search list conducted at residential address of the accused no.2 is identified as Ex.P131. He further deposed that one Mr.T.T.Somasundar, PCI, CBI/ACB, Bengaluru was entrusted to conduct inspection panchanama at Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution, Devanahalli, Bengaluru and identified the said proceedings as Ex.P115. He deposed that on 16/06/2009, he has collected receipt memo Ex.P117 from him and on 14/10/2009, the 193 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 proceedings in respect of DVD were conducted at the office of CBI as per Ex.P118, and also identified the photographs which were taken at the institution as Ex.P118(b) to Ex.P118(g).
121. This witness has also deposed that on 6/4/2009, he has received documents from Sri Mrithunjay Jha as per Ex.P129 and on 17/3/2009, he has seized four documents from T.Nakshatram, the Manager of Indian Bank, Ulsoor Branch. He identified the seizure memo as Ex.P132 and identified the petition dated 9/1/2009 which was submitted to the jurisdictional court seeking permission to conduct search at residential premises of accused no.2 and also at the office premises of Smt.Indira Gandhi English High School, Byappanahalli as per Ex.P133 and Ex.P134. He identified the two letters collected by him from the Manager of Indian Bank, Ulsoor Branch as to closure of loan of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution as Ex.P135 and Ex.P136, and 194 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 identified the Gazette Notification norms and standards of NCTE as applicable during the year 2002 at Ex.P137 and also identified the seizure of NCTE Act, Rules and Regulations in compendium as Ex.P138. He deposed that during the investigation, it was revealed that the accused no.1 misused his official position in favour of accused no.2 by appointing accused no.3 to 5 as inspection team to conduct inspection at Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution for the purpose of granting recognition. He deposed that as there were sufficient materials against the above said accused persons, he filed charge-sheet against them for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 468 and 471 and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. He further deposed that investigation reveals that the accused no.2 forged 3 FD receipts and submitted the same before Southern Regional Committee. He deposed that during the investigation, he has recorded the statement of Mr. 195 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Mohan Das, Director of SRC and also 84 witnesses and collected 68 documents with one material object which have been shown in the charge-sheet. He identified the accused no.1 and 3 before the court and also stated that he can identify accused no.2, 4 and 5.
122. In the cross-examination, this witness stated that on the basis of the source information, FIR came to be registered and he do not know the complainant. He stated that at the time of recording the statement accused no.1 has explained as to the his duties, but failed to recollect the same. He admitted that during the year 2005, the accused no.1 was the Vice-chairman of NCTE and on 18/10/2005, the SRC, Bengaluru rejected the application of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution seeking for recognition for three courses. He also admitted that as against the said order, the institution preferred three appeals before the Appellate Authority of NCTE, Delhi, and Sub- 196 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 committee consisting of Mr. Mohammed Siddique, Dr. S.S.Rati and Dr. M.C.Sharma was constituted which conducted inspection in the month of November 2005 and on 14/12/2005, the appeals filed by the institution came to be rejected. It has been elicited that he met CW.62 -Dr.Shardindu and enquired him with NCTE Act, 1993. This witness admitted suggestion that on 27/1/2006, accused no.1 took charge as a Chairman of NCTE, Delhi after the tenure of Mr.Shardindu. He admitted that he had gone through Ex.P128(l) and (n) and as against the note Ex.P128(n), note Ex.P128(o) was put up. He admitted that during his investigation, Sri V.C.Tewari was Member Secretary of NCTE who has put up notes as to the powers of Chairman of NCTE and also admitted that on 21/02/2006, the accused no.1 as a Chairperson of NCTE ordered for denova hearing and he has gone through the proceedings of appeal files upto June 2006 pertaining to Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution. He 197 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 stated that the Southern Regional Committee is the decision making authority in respect of grant of recognition to the institution and in case of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution, the said decision was taken by the Southern Regional Committee. This witness has admitted that during the year 2006, at the time of filing FIR in the year 2008, the accused no.1 was public servant, but denied that he was in the said capacity at the time of filing the charge-sheet during the year 2009. This witness has voluntarily stated that at the time of filing the charge-sheet, accused no.1 was retired and to a question that sanction was not obtained as against accused no.1 to file the charge-sheet, this witness has answered that as he was retired at that time, no such sanction was obtained. This witness when he was asked as to how accused no.1 misued his powers stated that the three committees did not recommended for recognition in respect of course sof RTEI, and inspite of it, accused no.1 reconstituted 198 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 the committee and has accorded recognition in respect of one course of Dr.RTEI. He stated that, the Southern Regional Committee approved sanction to run one course in respect of Dr.RTEI and stated that on the basis of Ex.P41, the committee has taken decision to accord such recognition. He admitted that in Ex.P41, neither the name of accused no.1 nor his signature is forthcoming and admitted that while passing orders as per Ex.P41, one Mr.Mohan Das was Regional Director of South Regional Committee. This witness has admitted that he did not find any communication either orally or in written between accused no.1 and accused no.3 to 5 and there is no evidence to show that accused no.1 is monitorily benefited in the present case. This witness has stated that accused no.1 by appointing visiting committee consisting of accused no.3 to 5 has cheated NCTE but admitted that accused no.1 has not fabricated any documents in respect of three appeals filed by Dr.RTEI. This witness has stated 199 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 that the accused no.1 by appointing committee consisting of accused no.3 to 5 and accepting its report committed fraud and denied suggestion that he intentionally did not arrayed Mr. Mohan Das who was Regional Director of SRC as an accused in the charge-sheet. He admitted that he has not shown Dr.G.Ponnuswamy and Dr. K.Kumaraswamy who were the members of South Regional Committee during the year 2006 as an accused and further admitted that, during the course of his investigation he did not found accused no.1 obtaining any valuable things or pecuniary advantages from Dr.RTEI. He denied suggestion that at the instance of Mr.Shardindu, he is deposing falsely as against accused no. 1 and also denied that his investigation did not disclose criminal conspiracy between accused no.1 and other accused persons. He denied suggestion that without obtaining proper sanction, he has filed charge-sheet against accused no.1. 200 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
123. In the cross-examination conducted by learned counsel for the accused no.2, this witness has stated that, the amount mentioned in Ex.P100 FD receipt of Indian Bank is not withdrawn by the accused no.2, but he has availed loan on the security of the said FD receipt. It has been elicited that, since this witness has collected documents pertaining to search conducted at Byappanahalli by Mr.Raja, he was not arrayed as a witness in the charge-sheet. He stated that, the originals of FD receipts Ex.P67 to Ex.P69 are with Jalahalli Police in connection with criminal case lodged against accused no.2, and since he is retired now, he cannot produce its originals. He admitted that the said criminal case was launched only against accused no.2 and he admitted that, in CC 9283/2006 which was on the file of Jalahalli police, accused no.2 was acquitted and the said Judgment when confronted admitted the same as Ex.D7. This witness has stated that, FD receipts referred in the said Judgment were 201 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 used as genuine for obtaining recognition by SRC. He further admitted that based on the report of Visiting Committee consisting of accused no.3 to 5 sanction in respect of D.Ed., course was granted to the institution but denied that there was no influence on the part of accused no.2 to obtain such sanction.
124. Before appreciating the above said oral as well as documentary evidence on record with the arguments canvassed by the respective counsels, it is necessary to have a look at some of the provisions of National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 and Rules and Regulations.
125. The National Council for Teachers Education Act,1993 came into force with an object to monitor the standards of institution which educate the educators. It is a National Expert body to advice Central and State Government on all matters pertaining to teacher's education. 202 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
126. Section 3 of the Act deals with establishment of the Council. As per the said section, the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint a Council to be called as National Council for Teachers Education which is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to enter into contract. The perusal of the said section reveals that the Head of the Council shall be at Delhi and it can with the previous approval of the Central Government established Regional offices at other places in India. Sub Section (4) of the Section 3 deals with constitution of the Council and the Council shall have Chairperson, Vice-chairperson, Member Secretary who are appointed by Central Government and also other members as stated therein. Section 4 of the Act deals with terms of the office and conditions of service of members of the council including Chairperson, Vice-chairperson and Member Secretary. Section 7 deals with the meetings 203 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 of the Council and as per the said section, the Council has to meet at least once in every year and it can also meet at such time and places and observe such rules of procedure in regard to the transaction of the business at its meeting. Even meetings of the Council can be held in the absence of Chairperson and Vice-chairperson. Section 12 deals with Functions of the Council. Section 13 deals with Inspection. For better understanding of the said section, same is reproduced as under:
"13.(1) For the purposes of ascertaining whether the recognized institutions are functioning in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Council may cause inspection of any such institution, to be made by such persons as it may direct, and in such manner as may be prescribed.
(2) The Council shall communicates to the institution the date on which inspection under sub-section (10 is to be made and the institution shall be entitled to be associated with the inspection in such manner as may be prescribed.204 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
(3) The Council shall communicate to the said institution, its views in regard to the results of any such inspection and may, after ascertaining the opinion of that institution, recommend to that institution the action to be taken as a result of such inspection.
(4) All communications to the institution under this section shall be made to the executive authority thereof, and the executive authority of the institution shall report to the Council the action, if any, which is proposed to be taken for the purposes of implementing any such recommendation as is referred to in sub-
section (3)."
127. Section 14 of the Act deals with Recognition of Teacher Education Institutions offering course or training in teacher education. As per the said section, every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day make an application for grant of recognition to the concerned Regional Committee in the prescribed form. Said section also deals with fees to be paid along with the 205 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 application and the Regional Committee after receipt of the application from the institution and after obtaining necessary particulars as it deems fit may consider the application and if it is satisfied that such institution had adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and fulfills such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in teacher education, grant an order of recognition. If the Regional Committee comes to conclusion that the institution does not fulfill the requirements as stated supra, pass an order refusing the recognition but before passing an order of refusal reasonable opportunity should be given to the institution for making written representation.
128. Section 15 deals with Permission for a new course or training by recognised institution. Section 16 deals with the affiliating body to grant affiliation after recognition or permission by the Council. As per the said section, affiliating body 206 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 cannot grant affiliation unless recognition is obtained from the concerned Regional Committee either under Section 14 or Section 15 of the Act.
129. Section 17 deals with the situation where there is a contravention of provisions of the Act and consequences thereof. Section 17A which was inserted with effect from 10/09/2006 states that the institution shall not admit any students to course or training in teacher education unless it has obtained recognition from the concerned Regional Committee under Section 14 or permission under Section 15 as the case may be.
130. Further, Section 18 deals with the Appeal provisions and as per the said section, if any person is aggrieved by an order made under Section 14 or under Section 15 or Section 17 of the Act, may prefer an appeal to the National Council for Teachers Education within such period as may be prescribed. Further, as per sub section (3) of Section 18 such appeals have to be made in such form and shall be 207 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 accompanied by a copy of the order appealed against and also shall be accompanied by prescribed fees.
131. Section 19 deals with the Bodies of the Council consisting of Chairperson, Vice-chairperson, Member Secretary and other members.
132. Section 20 deals with the constitution of Regional Committee. As per the said section, National Council for Teachers Education is empowered to constitute Regional Committee by notification in the Official Gazette such as Eastern Regional Committee, Western Regional Committee, Northern Regional Committee and Southern Regional Committee. The said committee shall constitute a member to be nominated by the Council, one representative from each States and Union territories of the region nominated by the respective states and Union territories. The Regional Committee shall also consists of such number of persons who have special knowledge and experience in a matter relating to teacher education as may be determined by the 208 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 regulations. The power is empowered with the council to nominate one of the members of the concerned Regional Committee to act as a Chairperson of the committee.
133. The National Council for Teachers Education Rules 1997 also have to be kept in mind. Rule 7 deals with powers and duties of the Chairperson and Rule 8 empowers the council to inspect the recognized institution. Rule 10 deals with the provisions of appeal and as per the said rule, if any person is aggrieved by an order passed under Section 14, 15 and 17 of the Act, may prefer an appeal in Form No.1 to the National Council for Teachers Education within 60 days of issue of such order along with prescribed fee.
134. Rule 11 deals with procedure for disposal of Appeals. For the purpose of better understanding same is extracted below:
209 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
"11. Procedure for disposal of appeals.
(1) On receipt of memorandum of Appeal, the Council shall call for the records of the case from the Regional Committee concerned which passed the order appealed against and after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard pass such orders as it may deem fit.
(2) The appellant shall be entitled to be represented by an employee or officer of the appellant institution.
(3) The Council shall decide every appeal as expeditiously as possible and ordinarily every appeal shall be decided on a perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, written argument, if any, affidavits and after hearing such oral arguments as may be advanced. (4) The Council shall make endeavor to dispose of every memorandum of appeal within a period of three months from the date of its filing.
(5) The Council shall not ordinarily allow more than three adjournments in any appeal."
135. The regulations have also been framed with respect to the procedure to be followed by the 210 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Regional Committees while dealing with Application for recognition. Said regulations can be found at National Council for Teachers Education [Procedure to be followed by the Regional Committees] Regulations 1995. Regulation 8 deals with procedure for deciding issues by the Regional Committees.
136. Appendix 5 to 7 appended to the NCTE Regulations deals with norms and standards for elementary teacher education program, norms and standards for bachelor of elementary education and norms and standards for secondary teacher education program. The Appendix 7 which deals with norms and standards for secondary teacher education program which is commonly known as B.Ed., prescribes the duration of the course, eligibility of the candidates, qualification of teaching staff, infrastructural facilities, instructional facilities and terms and conditions of the service of staff. 211 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
137. Appendix 10 deals with norms and standards for Certificate in Physical Education Program [C.P.Ed.,]
138. Before appreciating the evidence as regards to the allegations made against accused no.2 Sri Theerthe Gowda, it is necessary to know ingredients of Section 120-B, 417, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. For the purpose of better understanding the above said sections are reproduced hereunder:
Section 120-B of IPC "120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy, - (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an 212 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term no exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.] Section 415 of IPC:
"415. Cheating - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind reputation or property, is said to 'cheat".
The reading of above said Section reveals the following essentials to be proved.
(i) There must be deception of any person -
(ii) There must be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of such person.
i) to deliver any property to any person or;
ii) To consent that any person shall retain any property;
213 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
iii) Intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.
Section 420 of IPC:
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. - Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
The offence under Section 420 of IPC has following essentials:
(i) There must be deception i.e., the accused must have deceived someone;
(ii) that by said deception, the accused must induce a person.
(a) to deliver any property or;214 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
(b) to make, alter or destroy the whole or part of the valuable security or anything which is assigned or sealed and which is capable of being converted into valuable property.
(iii) that the accused did so intentionally.
Section 468 of IPC:
"468. Forgery for purpose of cheating. - Whoever commits forgery, intending that the [document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
The essential ingredients of Section 468 of IPC are as under:
(i) That the accused committed forgery;
(ii) That he did so intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating.
Section 471 of IPC:
"471. Using as genuine a forged [document or electronic record]. - Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any [document or electronic record] which he 215 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 knows or has reason to believe to be a forged [document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such [document or electronic record]."
The essential ingredients of Section 471 of IPC are as under:
(i) Fraudulent or dishonest use of document as genuine.
(ii) The person using it have knowledge or result to believe that the document is forged one.
139. It is not in dispute that, at relevant point of time, the accused no.2 was Secretary of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution Devanahalli, Bengaluru and on 29/12/2003, the said institution represented by accused no.2 made application to the South Regional Committee, Bengaluru seeking for recognition for D.Ed., C.P.Ed., and B.Ed., courses. The said application is got marked by the prosecution as per Ex.P8. The said application came to be rejected by the South 216 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Regional Committee, Bengaluru for want of NOC from Government of Karnataka on 3/12/2004. The said order is got marked as per Ex.P15. The accused no.2 on 6/12/2004 has preferred an appeal as against the said order before the National Council for Teachers' Education, Headquarters, New Delhi as per Ex.P17. The said appeal was considered by the NCTE Headquarters and as no inspection was conducted of the said institution and having regard to the fact that the NOC from Government of Karnataka was issued on 7/2/2004, it was decided to remand the matter to the South Regional Committee, Bengluru with direction to cause inspection of the institution. The said order is found at Ex.P19. In terms of the said order, the South Regional Committee constituted Expert Committee consisting of Sri.Ramesh Ghanta(PW1) and Prof. Kelu which could be seen from Ex.P1, Ex.P20 which are the intimation issued to the above said members. The said intimation was also issued to the 217 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Dr.Radhakrishna Teachers Education Institution vide Ex.P21. The prosecution has got examined one of the Expert Committee member Prof. Ramesh Ghata as PW.1 who deposed that as per the directions of South Regional Committee, he along with Prof. Kelu caused inspection of the institution on 14/6/2005 and by noting various deficiencies submitted report as per Ex.P2. PW.3 who was a Section Officer at South Regional Committee has deposed as to the entire process of disposing the appeal filed by the Dr.RTEI. The records further reveals that on the basis of the above said Report at EXP2, show-cause notice was issued to Dr.RTEI pointing out deficiencies by passing resolutions in 93rd meeting of the South Regional Committee which could be seen from Ex.P22. To the said show-cause notice the institution has replied as per Ex.P30. On the basis of said reply, again it was resolved by the South Regional Committee to send one more Expert Committee to verify the compliance under minutes in 218 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 96th meeting of South Regional Committee dated 19 th and 20th July 2005 which could be seen from Ex.P31. The records reveals that the South Regional Committee again constituted Expert Committee consisting of Sri. S.N.Prasad-PW2 and Sri. P.S.S.Sastry to visit to the institution and report the same which could be seen from Page No.8 of Ex.P35- file pertaining to South Region committee. The prosecution has got examined one of member of the said committee as PW.2 who deposed that, on 2/9/2005, he along with Dr.PSS Sastry inspected the institution and by noting infrastructures, instructional facilities, Human and Financial Resources submitted report as per Ex.P4 in the form of booklet. The said report is marked as Ex.P4 and on perusal of the said report, it reveals that, the said committee submitted that the above said infrastructure is sufficient only to run D.Ed., course. The South Regional Committee considered the said report in its meeting held on 23 rd and 24th 219 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 September 2005, and passed resolution in its 100 th meeting rejecting recognition in respect of all the three courses. The said proceedings is found at Ex.P32 which is got marked through PW.3 - Sri S.Nagaraj. The perusal of the said proceedings reveals that there is an violation of NCTE Act by admitting the students without recognition from the State Government and also in view of pending investigation by the Jalahalli police in respect of alleged fake FD receipts furnished to the South Regional Committee at the time of applying for recognition. The relevant portion of the proceedings are marked as Ex.P32(a). The prosecution has also got marked the order issued by Southern Regional Committee in accordance with Ex.P32(a) intimating its decision to the institution rejecting recognition in respect of all the three courses as Ex.P33. As against the said order, the institution preferred an Appeals as per Ex.P34 before the NCTE Headquarters,New Delhi. The evidence of PW.3 220 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Mr.Nagaraj who was Section Officer of SRC, Bengaluru reveals that the said appeals were considered by the Appellate Committee of NCTE Headquarters, Delhi and on the basis of the Expert Committee consisting of accused no.3 to 5, it was decided to reject the appeals in respect of B.Ed., and C.P.Ed courses and matter was remanded to SRC in respect of D.Ed., course. The said order was issued by NCTE Headquarters on 12/06/2005 which could be seen from Ex.125(u). The evidence of PW.3 reveals that, after receipt of the said order, same was placed before the South Regional Committee and in the meeting of South Regional Committee it was decided to defer the matter for want of additional documents and details. Again, the said matter was placed before South Regional Committee in its 112th meeting wherein it was decided to refer back the matter to NCTE headquarters. The minutes of the said meeting are got marked as per Ex.P36. The minutes of 113 th meeting are got marked as per Ex.P37. The South 221 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Regional Committee has written a letter to the NCTE headquarters as per Ex.P38 and in response to the said letter, the NCTE headquarters directed South Regional Committee, Bengaluru to implement its order. The said reply is got marked as Ex.P39. The prosecution has also got marked Ex.P40, the minutes of meetings of South Regional Committee No.116 under which it was decided to implement the orders of NCTE headquarters and grant recognition to D.Ed., course of the institution. In terms of said minutes, the order was passed as per Ex.P41 grating recognition to the institution in order to commence D.Ed., course for the academic year 2006-07. The said order was communicated to the institution of accused no.2.
140. The prosecution has also got marked the complaint lodged by one Sri B.V.Ramachandra Reddy against the accused no.2 alleging submission of fake FD receipts, plans etc., as per Ex.P14 which is spoken to by PW.3.
222 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
141. On the basis of the said complaint, Jalahalli Police registered a case against the accused no.2 in their Crime No. 86/2005 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. The copy of the said FIR is got marked as per Ex.P26. The prosecution in order to prove that the accused no.2 has fabricated documents got examined PW.5 to PW.8 who were Lecturers in Rural Teachers' Training Institution, Devanahalli. They have deposed that they worked as a Lecturers in the said institution and they met the accused no.2 through one of their colleague by name Ramaswamy and PW.5 particularly deposed that the accused no.2 and said Ramaswamy asked him to work in Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution which was refused and for the purpose of inspection he went to the institution and he gave his xerox markscards in the year 2004-05. He deposed that when the inspection was conducted as per the request of accused no.2 and Ramawamy, he was 223 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 present at the institution and attended the inspection. Through PW.5, the attendance Register of Rural Teachers' Training Institution for the year 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2008-09 were got marked as Ex.P46 to Ex.P48. PW.5 has identified his name appearing in the said registers as per Ex.P46(a) to Ex.P48(a). He also identified his salary extracts of Rural Teachers' Training Institution for the year 2006-08 which are marked as Ex.P49 to Ex.P51. Further, this witness has identified staff attendance Register of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution as per Ex.P52 and identified his name appearing in Page No.15 to 17 at sl.no.7 and deposed that the signature appearing infront of his name does not belongs to him. PW.5 has also further deposed that in Ex.P53, provisional attachment statement of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution in which his photographs and particulars were appearing and identified the same as Ex.P53(a). But stated that he never worked in the institution of 224 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 accused no.2 at any point of time. PW.6 who was also Lecturer in Rural Teachers' Training Institution, Devanahalli deposed that when accused no.2 was intended to start Teachers Training College for D.Ed., course, he sought for resume with photostat copies of qualification certificate and two passport size photos which he gave and on 14/6/2005, accused no.2 fixed an interview which was attended by him. He deposed that accused no.2 prepared tentative approved list which is signed by him but there-afterwards no appointment letter was issued to him and at no point of time, he worked in the institution of the accused no.2. He got identified the attested copies of his markscards and certificates as Ex.P29(a) to Ex.P29(d) and with respect to Ex.P53, he deposed that he has signed on his photo and got identified his signature appearing in the staff attendance register of Rural Teachers' Training Institution as per Ex.P46(b) to Ex.P48(b). With respect to Ex.P52, the staff attendance register of 225 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution, this witness has deposed that at page no.15, his name appears at sl.no.6 but the signature appearing in front of the said name does not belongs to him.
142. PW.7 - Mr. Manjunath who also worked as a Lecturer in Rural Teachers' Training Institution has deposed that he came in contact with accused no.2 through one of his colleague by name Mr.Ramaswamy in the month of June 2005 and at that time, accused no.2 intended to start Teachers' Training College for D.Ed., course and was in search of good teachers. As per the request of accused no.2, he submitted his resume with photostat copies of qualification certificate through Ramaswamy by retaining originals with him. He got identified the said certificates as per Ex.P29(e). He further deposed as per the request of accused no.2, he attended the interview in the institution on 14/6/2006 and as per the request of accused no.2, he handed over his two passport size photographs for provisional list and 226 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 signed on the same. He deposed that accused no.2 assured to issue appointment letter but same was not issued and at no point of time, he worked in Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution. He also identified provisional list which is marked as Ex.P53 and deposed that his name is appearing in the Attendance Register of Rural Teachers' Training Institution and identified the same as Ex.P46(c) to Ex.P48(c). With respect to Ex.P52, this witness has stated that at sl.no.8 of Page No.15, his name appears but he has not signed in front of the said name and deposed that the said signature does not belong to him.
143. The prosecution has also got examined one Mr.Ramaswamy as PW.8 who also deposed in line with PW.6 and PW.7. He was Lecturer in Rural Teachers' Training Institution and identified his signature appearing in the attendance register as per Ex.P46(a) to Ex.P48(d). With respect to the attendance register of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's 227 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Education Institution-EXP52, this witness has deposed that his name finds at sl.no.3 of Page No.15 and deposed that he never signed in the said register.
144. In the cross-examination, PW.6 stated that at the time of attestation of his documents, he was present with the original and he does not have idea as to how many members of NCTE visited the Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution for inspection but he spoke to one of the subject expert. He clearly stated that he do not know how his name entered in the register maintained by institution and only when CBI enquired him, he came to know that his name was entered in the register. In the cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for accused no.2, it was suggested that he only signed the staff attendance register of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution as per Ex.P52 which was denied. He also denied a suggestion that he worked both in Rural Teachers' 228 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Training Institution and also Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution. From careful perusal of the above said evidence of PW.6, it is quite clear that he never worked in the institution of accused no.2 at any point of time, but the staff attendance register as per Ex.P52 was created to show that he was appointed as a Lecturer in the said institution.
145. Even in the cross-examination of PW.7, it has been elicited that as per the instructions of accused no.2, he visited the institution at the time when NCTE came up for inspection and denied suggestion that he only signed Ex.P52 attendance register of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution. He also denied a suggestion put up by the learned counsel for the accused No 2 to the effect that he worked both in Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution and also at Rural Teachers' Training Institution. The above said evidence of PW.6 and PW.7 reveals that eventhough they never worked 229 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 in the institution of accused no.2, their name came to be entered in the staff attendance register. In order to corroborate the evidence of PW.6 and PW.7, the prosecution has also got examined the students who studied D.Ed., course in the institution of accused no.2 I,e PW.14, PW.18 to PW.21, PW.25 to PW.28 and PW.32 who have deposed that they never seen faculty by name B.C. Ramaswamy, Vijayakumar, Venkatesh Gowda, Kantharaju, Nagaraju and C.Manjunath. On careful perusal of the attendance register at Ex.P52, their names are appearing. In the entire cross-examination of these witnesses, no suggestion was put to the effect that the above said faculty members worked in the institution of accused no.2. In the cross- examination, PW.26 who worked as a Principal in the institution of accused no.2 has only identified his signature in the staff attendance register and deposed that only himself and Umarani whose name is found at sl.no.2 worked at relevant point of time 230 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 and he do not know the other persons mentioned in the said attendance register. PW.27 who also worked as a Principal at the institution of accused no.2 during the year 2006-07 has identified the attendance register as per Ex.P52 and deposed that the persons whose name is reflected in it never worked with him, and he never affixed his signature on the same. Even in the cross-examination of this witness, no suggestion was made to the effect that the persons whose name is appearing in Ex.P52 were faculty members in the institution of accused no.2.
146. The prosecution has also got examined the Retired Deputy Director for Public Instruction Smt. Malathi.S as PW.9 who deposed that the private institution who require eligibility certificate to run the courses have to submit the details of the teachers and their qualifications to the Department of State Education Research and Training (DSERT) and after verification, they place the same before NCTE for approval. She deposed that in the year 231 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 2005, Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution had submitted the eligibility list of teachers to DSERT for approval and identified the same as Ex.P57 and also letter submitted by accused no.2 to approve the eligibility list of teachers as per Ex.P58. She deposed that along with the said letter, accused no.2 submitted the provisional list of teachers working in the institution as per Ex.P53. On perusal of Ex.P53, it is quite clear that the persons by name B.C.Ramaswamy, B.N.Nagaraju, T.C.Venkatesh Gowda, and Manjunath .C were shown as faculty members of the institution, and on the application of accused no.2, the said list was approved by the DSERT which could be seen from Ex.P57. The evidence of PW.6 and PW.7 and also of the above said witnesses makes it very clear that there were no faculty members as submitted in Ex.P53 and by submitting false faculty members list, the eligibility certificate as per Ex.P57 was obtained by accused no.2.
232 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
147. It is not in dispute that the South Regional Committee, Bengaluru has accorded recognition to Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution for the year 2006-07. But, prior to issuance of the said recognition, accused no.2 started the courses in his institution by admitting the students. It is pertinent to note that when PW.4 - Sri Mohammed Akhtar Siddiqui who was the member of expert committee which visited the institution on 17/11/2005 has specifically deposed that during inspection, they collected to pamphlets in which the accused no.2 has advertised for D.Ed., B.Ed., and C.P.Ed., courses calling for the students to make admissions in the said institution. The said pamphlets were got marked as Ex.P43 and Ex.P44. On perusal of the said pamphlets, it is quite clear that NCTE order was mentioned as "KR/ELE/SRO/NCTE/2002-03/2889. The said pamphlets also reveals as to the State Government order. But, it is pertinent to note that the said 233 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 inspection was conducted on 17/11/2005 as per the directions of the council and during the said inspection, the pamphlets as per Ex.P43 and Ex.P44 were seized. It is pertinent to note that the Southern Regional Committee on 31/8/2006 has issued recognition for D.Ed., course and under such circumstances how during the year 2005 itself, the accused no.2 published pamphlets as per Ex.P43 and Ex.P44 mentioning the NCTE approval number. This fact makes it very clear that accused no.2 made false representation as to obtaining NCTE approval and also order from the State Government so as to make admissions to the above said three courses. In the cross-examination, PW.4 has stood to his case and specifically stated that he made observations of infrastructure available in the institution, and the said observations are found at Ex.P43(a). He got marked his report as per Ex.P45 and in the cross- examination at page no.11 he deposed that on Ex.P43, the accused no.2 admitted his signature 234 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 appearing on it. This witness has specifically in his cross-examination stated that when they visited the institution, the accused no.2 himself introduced as separately and he made rough note regarding inspection of the institution on the backside of the pamphlet marked as Ex.P43(a). The above said evidence of PW.4 makes it very clear that accused no.2 only in order to admit the students for D.Ed., C.P.Ed., and B.Ed., courses has caused advertisements before obtaining recognition from Southern Regional Committee and also from NCTE and got admitted the students in the institution by collecting fees from them. The prosecution has also got marked the students attendance register as per EXP113 which was seized during the search of the institution in the presence of PW.31. The perusal of the said register makes it very clear that during the year 2004-05 itself, the students were got admitted in the institution of the accused no.2 without obtaining recognition from Southern Regional 235 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Committee and also from NCTE which is in violation of sect 17A of the NCTE ACT which reads as under:
"17A. No institution shall admit any student to a course or training in teacher education, unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition under section 14 or permission under section 15, as the case may be."
148. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that, the alleged signatures of accused no.2 Q1 TO Q4 appearing on Ex.P52(a) to (d) were referred for scientific examination through the assistance of the Assistant Director and Scientist-C, CFSL, Chandigarh- PW.30. The Investigating Officer during investigation has obtained specimen signatures and hand writings of accused no.2 as per Ex.P106 in the presence of PW.31 and the said signatures and questioned signatures were sent for scientific examination and after examining the same, PW.30 has submitted report stating that, the questioned signatures Q1 to Q4 and admitted signatures are 236 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 made by the same person. The said reports are got marked by prosecution through PW.30 as Ex.P107 to Ex.P110. The said witness was cross-examined, but no suggestions were put to this witness stating that Q1 to Q4 does not belong to the accused no.2. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited from the mouth of this witness to falsify the reports at Ex.P107 to Ex.P110.
149. The prosecution has also got examined Senior Assistant Director for Public Instruction of Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board as PW.15 who deposed that while he was working in the said Department, the accused no.2 applied for institution code and also the Secretary of the said institution wrote a letter seeking permission to conduct the exams for the academic year 2004-05 and 2005-06. He got identified the receipt memo under which he has furnished entire file pertaining to the institution of accused no.2 as Ex.P62 and also he identified the said file as per Ex.P63 and relevant 237 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 papers of the file are D-54(A to H). In the cross- examination of this witness, nothing worthwhile has been elicited and the evidence of this witness reveals that based on the documents, he has deposed as to seeking permission to conduct exam for the year 2004-05, 2005-06 by the institution of the accused no.2. The careful perusal of Ex.P63 (D-54C), it is quite clear that the accused no.2 sought for permission to conduct exams to the students who have been admitted during the year 2004-05, 2005-
06. This letter makes it very clear that even though the recognition was issued on 31/8/2006, but before that accused no.2 got admitted students of the institution which is clear violation of Section 17-A of NCTE Act. The perusal of Ex.P63 makes it very clear that DSERT has rejected the said application on the ground that during the year 2004-2005 and 2005- 06, the institution was unauthorised, as such the permission for college code and also to conduct the examination cannot be granted. The said reply is 238 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 issued on 23/9/2006 which is at Ex.P63 (D54-E). The records reveals that after obtaining the recognition on 31/8/2006, the accused no.2 has filed the Writ Petition No.12856 of 2006 to declare that the said recognition is valid with effect from academic year 2004-05. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru by order dated 30/7/2007. The said order makes it also very clear that before obtaining recognition from NCTE, the accused no.2 got admitted students to his institution.
150. It is specifically alleged that the accused no.2 as a Secretary of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution while submitting application seeking for recognition has furnished fake FD receipts purported to have been issued by Sree Karagadamma Co-operative Bank Ltd., and tried to cheat the NCTE.
151. The learned counsel for the accused no.2 in his written arguments submitted that the accused 239 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 no.2 was Honorary Secretary of the society and he has no role in getting admission of the students and also in conducting classes for the academic year 2004-05 and 2005-06. It is further submitted that the institution was handed over to Principals by Name Sri Jayaram and Sri Suresh Francis who used to advertise for institution as to courses offered to it and they have collected fees and donations, as such accused no.2 is no way connected with the collection of donation and other tuition fees.
152. It is also submitted that at no point of time, accused no.2 has issued three FDs purported to have been belonging to M/s Karagadamma Co- operative Bank Ltd., Yelahanka Branch and there was no necessity for the accused to issue the same. It is submitted that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the accused no.2 has given the said FD receipts to the NCTE towards endowment fund. It is also submitted that the Regional Director of Southern Regional Committee Sri M. Vasudev lodged 240 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 a complaint against the accused no.2 before Jalahalli Police Station alleging of furnishing the above said three fake FD receipts and charge-sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.9283/2010 on the basis of the said complaint. It is submitted that after full- pledged trial, the jurisdictional Magistrate Court acquitted the accused for the alleged offences which was not challenged by the prosecution. It is also submitted that in the present case on hand, the person who lodged the complaint against the accused no.2 Mr.B.V.Ramachandra Reddy was not cited as an witness and he has not been examined by the prosecution. It is submitted that the said B.V.Ramachandra Reddy along with one Mr.N.M.Muniraju demanded 10 per cent of the seats of the institution which was refused and both of them have filed civil suits against the accused no.2 and his family members. It is submitted that above said B.V.Ramachandra Reddy and Mr.N.M.Muniraju having grudge against accused no.2 and might have 241 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 fabricated the FD receipts pertaining to M/s Karagadamma Co-operative Bank Ltd., Yelahanka Branch. It is further submitted that after obtaining recognition from the NCTE, the accused no.2 was in due of loan which was availed for development of the institution and as he failed to pay the EMI of the said loan, the Indian Bank has adjusted fixed deposit receipts of Rs.16,00,000/- and Rs.8,00,000/- towards the said loan which was furnished by the accused no.2 towards endowment fund to the NCTE. Hence, there is no fault on the part of the accused no.2. It is also submitted that the visiting committee which visited the institution have submitted their reports varying in all the respects. As such, a committee consisting of accused no.3 to 5 was constituted which after due inspection of the institution submitted report recommending for recognition in respect of D.Ed., course. It is also submitted that the prosecution has not cited any students who completed their course in the 242 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 institution and no complaint has been lodged neither by the students nor by their parents complaining of short comings in infrastructure of the institution. As such, it is submitted that, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the alleged offences as against the accused no.2.
153. The accused no.2 examined himself as DW.1 and got marked the Resolution dated 2/3/2001, photographs along with one CD accompanied by Certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act,(marked with objection) and also Certificate of Registration dated 15/7/1985 with list of Executive Members of its institution which are marked as Ex.D8 and Ex.D9. In the cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses, the notice issued to Prof. M.C.Sharma, Prof. Akthar Siddiqui and Dr.Rathi was confronted to PW.36 and same was marked as Ex.D1. Further, the accused have also confronted the letter addressed to the Regional Director of Southern Regional Committee Sri Mohan 243 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Das by Deputy Secretary L.R. Agarwal of NCTE dated 17/2/2006 as Ex.D2. The deposition of PW.36 in C.C.No.17051/93 was got marked as Ex.D3. Further, the notice issued to the visiting committee consisting of accused no.3 to 5 was confronted to PW.44 and same was marked as Ex.D4. During the course of cross-examination of PW.44, the order passed by the NCTE headquarters, New Delhi dated 12/6/2006 was got marked as Ex.D6. Further, in the cross-examination of PW.46, the certified copy of Judgment of C.C.No.9283/2006 dated 25/2/2021 was got marked as Ex.D7.
154. I have tested the above said arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the accused no.2 with materials on record.
155. The prosecution has got marked the application submitted by the accused no.2 seeking recognition to the NCTE dated 29/10/2003 as per Ex.P8. In compliance of NCTE Rules and Regulations, an endowment fund and reserve fund is 244 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 to be created by the institution which applies for recognition by creating an account which is to be jointly operated by NCTE and the concerned institution. In compliance of the said rule, the accused no.2 along with Ex.P8 has furnished FD receipt bearing No.56 dated 25/11/2002 drawn on Sree Karagadamma Chits and Finance Pvt. Ltd., having due date 24/11/2007. The prosecution has got examined the Junior Technical Assistant at the office of Registrar of Companies, Bengaluru as PW.16 who deposed that in the year 1990, a company by name Sree Karagadamma Chits and Finance Ltd., was registered in the office of Registrar of Companies and he got identified the said Registration Certificate as Ex.P64. In the cross- examination, it has been elicited that the said document is original and he does not know how it has came in possession of CBI, But, the veracity of the said document is not at all tested in the cross- examination. The perusal of Ex.P64 reveals that Sree 245 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Karagadamma Chits and Finance Ltd., was registered in the office of Registrar of Companies.
156. The prosecution has also got marked alleged three fake FD receipts stated to have been issued by the accused no.2 as per Ex.P67 to Ex.P69. Since the issuance of the said FD receipts itself is disputed by accused no.2 as stated above in the written arguments, it is to be seen whether the said FD receipts came to be issued by the accused no.2.
157. In this regard, it is useful to refer to the evidence of PW.3 who was Section Officer of Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru. He has deposed that the Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution submitted its application seeking for recognition as per Ex.P8 and since the original NOC issued was submitted late, the said application was not considered and after processing the application, they have issued deficiency letter by observing deficiencies to consider the application. He got marked the said deficiency letter as per Ex.P11. 246 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 He deposed that Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution has submitted reply to the said deficiency letter as per Ex.P13. When Ex.P11 and Ex.P13 are carefully perused, it is quite clear that after scrutiny of the application filed by the Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution certain short-comings were noted and it was directed to comply the said short-comings. One of the short- coming which was noted in Ex.P11 was the fixed deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- towards endowment fund kept other than Nationalized Bank /Scheduled Bank will not be accepted. Ex.P11 makes it very clear that towards endowment fund, a fixed deposit has to be obtained from Nationalised or Scheduled Bank. The accused no.2 has issued reply to the said deficiency letter as per Ex.P13 on 12/7/2004 in which he in compliance of the above said observations furnished fixed deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- kept in Scheduled Bank vide FDR No. 2502 dated 12/7/2004. The copy of the said FDR is found in the 247 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 file. Further the prosecution has also got examined PW.38 Smt. Jojiyna Lakra who was Section Officer of the appeal division of NCTE, Delhi during the period 2004-06. She deposed that she dealt with file of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution, Bengaluru and got marked the said entire file as Ex.P126. She deposed that on perusal of the entire file, it was found that there was no NOC from State Government and she observed that said institution had no proper infrastructure to run D.Ed., C.P.Ed., and B.Ed., courses, and the said institution had furnished three fake FD receipts of Rs.5,00,000/- each to the Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru. She further deposed that though no inspection was conducted of the institution, it has been represented that inspection was conducted. She identified note put up by her seeking for rejection of the appeal in view of no inspection, for submitting fake FD receipts and also not obtaining NOC from State Government. The said 248 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 note is as per Ex.P126(a). The careful perusal of Ex.P126(a) makes it very clear that on the basis of the comments of Regional Director of Southern Regional Committee, it was proposed to reject the appeal. When the comments of Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee are carefully perused, it is quite clear that in response to the deficiency letter on three occasions, FD receipt of Rs.5,00,000/- each was submitted towards endowment fund issued from Sree Karagadamma Co-operative Bank Ltd., The prosecution also got marked para-wise remarks as to the appeal filed by the accused no.2 as per Ex.P18. The careful perusal of Ex.P18 also makes it very clear that the Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution have submitted three fixed deposit receipts of Rs.5,00,000/- each of Sree Karagadamma Co- operative Bank Ltd., bearing No.2502, 2501 and 2503. Hence, it is quite clear that the said FD receipts have been issued by the Dr. Radhakrishna 249 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Teacher's Education Institution in compliance of NCTE Rules and Regulations.
158. The prosecution has got examined the Inspector of Jalahalli Police Station, Bengaluru as PW.24 who produced the charge-sheet of C.C.No.9283/2006 and deposed that the original FD receipts were filed along with the charge-sheet in the said case. It is not in dispute that on the basis of the complaint alleging furnishing fake documents, FIR came to be lodged against the accused no.2 as per Ex.P26 by the Jalahalli Police and charge-sheet was filed in connection with the same in C.C.No.9283/2006. PW.24 has got marked the above said 3 FD receipts as per Ex.P67 to Ex.P69. In the cross-examination, no suggestion was put to this witness that above said FD receipts were not furnished by the accused no.2. The careful perusal of above said FD receipts reveals that they bear registration number of Sree Karagadamma Co- operative Society Bank Ltd., bearing Regd. No. 250 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 16687/89-90. The prosecution has got examined PW.17, the Chief Executive Officer of Basaveshwaranagar Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Bengaluru who deposed that their society was registered with Registrar of Companies in the year 1989 with Regn.No.16687/1989-90 dated 12/10/1989. The attested copy of the Registration Certificate of the said society was got marked as per Ex.P65, and the above said three FD receipts as per Ex.P67 to Ex.P69. In the cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused no.2, it is admitted that the Basaveshwaranagar Credit Co-operative Society was registered under the registration of Co- operative Societies Act, 1959, and denied suggestion that every circle has its own numbers and there are chances of reflecting same registration number in different circles. This witness admitted that Co- operative Society is different from Co-operative Bank Ltd.,The prosecution has also got examined the Inspector of Co-operative Society at the office of 251 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society, Bengaluru as PW.23 who deposed that as per the request of CBI, he has handed over certain documents under receipt memo Ex.P71 and certified copy of the extract of register as Ex.P72. He deposed that as per the said register extract, the register No.16687/89-90 dated 12/10/1989 is relating to Basaveshwaranagar Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., situated at No.8, 2nd Main, 2nd Block, 3rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru. The careful comparison of the said registration number with the registration number which is appearing on Ex.P66 to Ex.P68, it is quite clear that both registration are one and the same. This witness has admitted that Co-operative Society Ltd., and Co-operative Bank Ltd., are different from each other and on the basis of area, the registration circle were made. On careful perusal of the above said FD receipts with Ex.P72, it is quite clear that Basaveshwaranagar Credit Co- operative Society as well as Sree Karagaqdamma Co- 252 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 operative Bank Ltd., are situated at Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru. Under such circumstances, it cannot be come to the conclusion that the registration of the said banks will be in different circle. It is also pertinent to note that Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., and Co-operative Bank Ltd., are governed by Co-operative Societies Act. The only difference between two is that, the Credit Co- operative Society can accept deposits and advance loans only to its members restricting its business activities to the societies membership, whereas the Co-operative Bank Ltd., can accept deposits and advance loans to the general public, acting as a bank and surviving broader customer base. In respect of Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., a license from Reserve Bank of India to operate is not required whereas in respect of Co-operative Bank Ltd., there must be license from RBI to engage in banking business and to use the word 'Bank' in its name. Thus, it is clear that except in the formality of 253 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 obtaining license from RBI, Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., and Co-operative Bank Ltd., operates both in accepting deposits and advance loans. The Credit Co-operative Society operates in a limited scope only in relation to its members, whereas Co- operative Bank Ltd., transacts with general public acting as a Bank.
159. It is to be noted that PW.23 has deposed that on perusal of register, Sree Karagadamma Co- operative Society, was not registered at the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society, Bengaluru, 1st Cricle, Malleshwaram. No where this evidence was not challenged in the cross- examination by putting suggestion that Sree Karagadamma Co-operative Bank Ltd., is also in existence. Therefore, on careful perusal of the above said records, it is quite clear that the accused no.2 in compliance of NCTE Rules and Regulations has furnished the above said FD receipts as per Ex.P67 to Ex.P69 issued from Sree Karagadamma Co- 254 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 operative Bank Ltd., It is also pertinent to note that as per Ex.P27, the Deputy Secretary has written a letter to the Regional Director of Southern Regional Committee seeking for clarification as to whether the Southern Regional Committee has suffered any financial loss and whether on the basis of FDRs submitted by the institution any decision in favour of the institution by granting recognition was taken. In reply to the said letter, the Southern Regional Committee has replied as per Ex.P28 to the effect that Southern Regional Committee had not suffered any financial loss on account of action of the institution and did not take action in favour of the institution by granting recognition on the basis of the FDRs submitted. But, the pee-requisite to seek recognition is to furnish fixed deposits towards endowment fund along with the application. It is pertinent to note that on repeated demand, the accused no.2 subsequently has furnished FD receipts of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.9,00,000/- of 255 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Indian Bank as per Ex.P100 and Ex.P102. Therefore, the intention on the part of the accused no.2 was to cheat NCTE by furnishing fake FD receipts is clear. He had intention to deceive NCTE from the date of submitting for recognition,i,e from the inception.
160. It is also pertinent to note that on receipt of complaint from Sri B.V.Ramachandra Reddy dated 11/11/2014, the Regional Director of Southern Regional Committee wrote to the Manager of Sree Karagadamma Co-operative Bank Ltd., Yelahanka Branch requesting for verification of the above said three FDRs. The letter sent to the address of the Yelahanka Branch was returned by the postal authorities stating that no such bank exists at the address. This could be seen from Ex.P24 the letter submitted by the Regional Director of Southern Regional Committee to the Inspector of Police, Jalahalli Police Station while handing over above said FDRs for the purpose of investigation. It is also to be noted that to none of the prosecution 256 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 witnesses, no suggestion was made to the effect that above said FDRs were not furnished by the accused no.2. Therefore, it can be safely come to the conclusion that the accused no.2 at the time of submitting application seeking for recognition furnished the above said three fake FDRs.
161. The Learned counsel for the accused no.2 by relying upon Ex.D7- the certified copy of the Judgment passed in C.C.9283/2006 dated 25/2/2021 submitted that since accused no.2 was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 r/w Section 511 of IPC, as such accused no.2 cannot be tried again for the similar offences. In this regard, when the entire records are perused, it is borne out that accused no.2 filed an application under Section 300 of Cr.P.C., before this court on 31/1/2023 seeking for his discharge by relying upon the above said Judgment. The said application came to be rejected by this court by its order dated 5/4/2023 by observing that the present 257 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 case is filed against accused no.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w Sections 420, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act alleging that accused no.2 entered into criminal conspiracy with other accused persons in the matter of securing recognition of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution for conducting B.Ed., D.Ed., and C.P.Ed., courses by fraudulently submitting fake FDRs of Rs.15,00,000/- purportedly issued by M/s Karagadamma Co-operative Bank Ltd., It is observed that though the facts of this case is also one and the same of the case C.C.No.9283/2006 with regard to the submission of 3 FDRs to the NCTE, the other allegations such as conspiracy made against present accused are different from each other and the accused in furtherance of criminal conspiracy got recognition from the accused no.3 and 4 and from accused no.1 to run D.Ed., course though there was inadequate 258 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 infrastructure and faculty to conduct the courses. The said application also came to be rejected on the ground that the allegations in both the cases are different from each other. Therefore, the accused cannot claim benefit of Section 300 of Cr.P.C., for his discharge. The said order has attained finality.
162. It is also borne out from the records that challenging the order passed by this court on the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., a Criminal Revision Petition No.669/2012 was filed before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru which ultimately came to be dismissed and during the said proceedings also, the accused no.2 put forth contention that he cannot be tried for the alleged offences as he is already facing trial before Magistrate for the offences punishable under Section 468, 471 and 420 of IPC in C.C.No.9283/2006 for the same charges that he has created fake FDRs, as such it amounts to double jeopardy and he cannot be tried twice for the same offence. The Hon'ble High 259 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Court of Karnataka has rejected the said contention of accused no.2 by observing as under:
"If at all, the accused able to get an acquittal either in this case or in that case, he can plead the same before trial court. However, so far as conspiracy offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC, he was the beneficiary out of the order passed by accused no.1 and recommendation made by accused no.3 to 5. Therefore, once this accused has been charge- sheeted in this case, he is at liberty to get stay proceedings before the Magistrate. Therefore, on that ground this accused cannot be exonerated from the charges."
163. With respect to the Judgment passed in C.C.No.9283/2006, it is to be noted that careful perusal of the said Judgment makes it very clear that in the said case the prosecution examined only 6 witnesses out of charge-sheeted witnesses and among them 3 witnesses turned hostile. It has been observed that the complainant CW.14 was not examined before the court, as such the said court 260 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 given benefit of doubt in favour of accused no.2 and acquitted him. But, as observed, the allegations in the present case are different from C.C.9283/2006. The prosecution in this case by examining PW.16, PW.17 and PW.23 has proved that accused no.2 has submitted forged FDRs only in order to obtain recognition from the authorities. Hence, with due respect this court is of the opinion that eventhough in C.C.No.9283/2006, the accused no.2 was acquitted same will not come to his aid in view of different facts,circumstances and allegations, and also in view of evidence as discussed above. The evidence of PW16,PW17 AND PW23 makes it very clear that accused no 2 has submitted three fake FDR's of the bank which was not in existence at all only in order to cheat the southern Regional Committee and National Council for Teachers' Education.
164. It is not in dispute that accused no.2 has furnished two FD receipts of Indian Bank, Ulsoor 261 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Branch, Bengaluru for Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.9,00,000/- respectively dated 20/9/2007 and also executed On Demand Promissory Note as per Ex.P101 and Ex.P103 towards Endowment and Reserve Fund in compliance of NCTE Rules and Regulations. As per the NCTE Rules and Regulations, a joint account is to be opened which is to be jointly operated by the concerned institution as well as NCTE authorities. The signatures appearing on Ex.P100 to Ex.P103 were sent for Forensic examination and the handwriting expert-PW.30 comparing the said signatures with specimen signatures of accused no.2 opined that both signatures are of same person. In the entire cross- examination of PW.30, no suggestion was put to the effect that Ex.P100 to Ex.P103 are not furnished by accused no.2 and the signature appearing on the same does not belongs to him. On the basis of Ex.P100 to Ex.P103, the recognition has been granted to the Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's 262 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Education Institution from the Academic year 2006- 07 as could be seen from order of Southern Regional Committee. Subsequently the said FDs are adjusted towards outstanding loan of accused no.2 as could be seen from Ex.P135 and Ex.P136 which are the letters issued by the Indian Bank stating that the above said FDs were closed and proceeds of the same were adjusted towards loan availed by accused no.2 amounting to Rs.13,50,000/- and Rs.8,00,000/- respectively. This also makes it very clear that accused no.2 committed fraud on the National Council for Teachers Education by allowing his banker i.e., Indian Bank to adjust his outstanding loan out of proceeds of the FDRs which were submitted to the NCTE towards Endowment fund in compliance of NCTE Rules and Regulations. The accused no.2 ought to have brought to the notice of either National Council for Teachers Education or Southern Regional Committee as to the said fact or requested his banker not to proceed 263 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 against the said FDs as same have been submitted towards creation of Endowment Fund to the National Council for Teachers Education. This conduct of the accused no.2 shows that he has committed fraud on the Southern Regional Committee as well as National Council for Teachers Education headquarters, New Delhi. The accused no 2 thereby alienated the security given to M/s National Council for Teachers Education, Southern Regional Committee, and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC.
165. It is not in dispute that recognition to start D.Ed., course was obtained by the Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution for the year 2006-07. The Ex.P113 which is admission register of students of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution for the year 2004-05 reveals that students were admitted in the institution much prior to obtaining recognition from Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru. Ex.P113 itself 264 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 makes it very clear even much prior to obtaining recognition, the accused no.2 got admitted students to his institution by collecting fees/donations from them. The payment of fees / donations is a prerequisite to admit any student. The prosecution has also got marked the fee receipts as per Ex.P73, Ex.P80, Ex.P84 to Ex.P99 and Ex.P104 and Ex.P105 which were recovered during the conduct of seizure at the institution. PW.27 has spoken about the Ex.P80, PW.50 has spoken about Ex.P104, Ex.P105 and PW.29 has spoken about Ex.P84 to Ex.P99 fee receipts. It is pertinent to note that the signatures of accused no.2 appearing on Ex.P73, Ex.P80, Ex.P104 and Ex.P105 were referred for opinion of the expert who after comparing the same with specimen signatures opined that both the signatures appearing on admitted as well as questioned documents are belonged to accused no.2. Hence, it is quite clear that the accused no.2 has collected fees from the students who got admitted to his 265 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 institution. During the course of visit to the institution by the Expert Committee PW.4 has seized pamphlet in which the advertisement as to the courses conducted at the institution were recovered and got marked as per Ex.P43 and Ex.P44. The said committee visited the institution on 17/11/2005 which is much prior to the obtaining recognition i.e., 31/8/2006. The perusal of Ex.P43 and Ex.P44 reveals that the NCTE order No.KR/ELE/SRO/NCTE /2002-03/2889 was mentioned which was not at all issued by the NCTE or Southern Regional Committee. By giving false advertisement mentioning created/fabricated NCTE order number, the accused deceived the students and made them to take admissions in the institution, and thereby he has cheated the students and used the forged document as genuine and under the said document collected donations/ fees from the students. It is also pertinent to note that the accused no.2 submitted three fake FD receipts purportedly issued by M/s 266 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Karagadamma Co-operative Bank Ltd., Yelahanka Branch, Bengaluru which was not in existence and submitted the same along with the application seeking for recognition. Further, the fixed deposit receipts which were submitted to the NCTE as per Ex.P100 to Ex.P103 towards endowment fund came to be adjusted against the loan account of accused no.2 and thereby security given to M/s National Council for Teachers Education, Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru was alienated without their knowledge or consent. So, it is evident from the above said acts of accused no.2 that he had dishonest intention from the beginning and had submitted application along with forged FD receipts for the purpose of availing the recognition for his institution and used forged document as genuine.
166. It is also pertinent to note that 50 students in Tamil medium were admitted for D.Ed., course for the academic year 2004-05 and 2005-06 without obtaining approval from National Council 267 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 for Teachers Education, Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru and Department of State Education Research and Training, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru. The above said fee receipts reveals that for the year 2006-07, accused no.2 got admitted students to the D.Ed., course and collected amount between Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- as donation / fees from each student. Further, the accused no.2 had fraudulently submitted a list of six faculty members to the Director, Department of State Education Research and Training, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru without employing them and also had fraudulently prepared attendance register showing six persons as members of the faculty. The above said acts makes it very clear that since from inception, the accused no.2 had intention to cheat the students, National Council for Teachers Education, Southern Regional Committee and also National Council for Teachers Education headquarters, New Delhi so also general public. He 268 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 in the form of collecting fees / donations from the students made an wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the students, with dishonest intention. The above said evidence on record makes it very clear that the accused no 2 had committed the alleged offences.
167. With regard to institutional infrastructure available at RTEI, Devanahalli, Bengaluru, the prosecution has got examined students who completed D.Ed., course in the said institution as PW.25, PW.28, PW.32, PW.18 to PW.21, PW.14 who deposed that, there was no proper class rooms, no separate toilet for male and female, there was adequate library and laboratory so also there was no playground. Though these witnesses have been cross-examined lengthily but nothing worthwhile has been elicited from their mouth. It is also to be noted that, the prosecution has got examined one of the members of the visiting committee dated 14/6/2005, 2/9/2005 and 17/11/2005 as PW.1, PW.2 and PW.4 269 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 who submitted their respective report as per Ex.P2, Ex.P4 and Ex.P45 in which it is clearly mentioned that the infrastructure available at the institution was not fit to run any of the educational courses. The prosecution has also got examined PW.33 and PW.34 who have conducted mahazar at the institution as per Ex.P115 and the said mahazar also reveals that there was no proper infrastructure to run any of the educational courses. The photographs which were taken during the panchanama were got marked as Ex.P118(a) to Ex.P118(g) which reveals that, the infrastructure was not upto the mark to conduct the classes. The CD which recorded the videograph of the entire building was got marked as Ex.P120 also reveals that there was no proper and adequate infrastructure to run the classes at the institution. The accused no.2 in his evidence has got marked the photographs, CD to show that institution had proper infrastructure to conduct the classes, but said 270 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 photographs were marked subject to objection on the ground that they do not reveal when the said photographs were snatched. The date and time of taking the said photographs is not appearing, as such only on the basis of the said photographs, it cannot be come to the conclusion that the institution had proper infrastructure to run the educational courses. Hence, Point No.5 to 7 are answered in the 'Affirmative'.
POINT NO. 2 TO 4:
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AGAINST ACCUSED NO.1, 3 TO 5:
168. The oral as well as documentary evidence on record reveals that Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution, Devanahalli, Bengaluru sought for recognition of three courses namely B.Ed., C.P.Ed., and D.Ed., courses. The first committee consisting of PW.1 and CW.3 conducted inspection on 14/6/2005 which opined that physical facilities are not as per NCTE norms. Again, the 271 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 second committee constituted consisting of members Sri S.N.Prasad - PW.2 and Dr.PSS Sastry - CW.5. The said committee inspected the institution on 2/9/2005 and submitted its report stating that existing infrastructure and facilities are adequate for only one course and best suited for D.Ed., course. The National Council for Teachers Education, Southern Regional Committee did not accepted the said report on the ground that the institution submitted fake FDRs at the time of seeking recognition. Again, on 17/11/2005 another inspection team was appointed comprising of 3 members consisting of M.C.Sharma - CW.64, Dr.S.S.Rathi -CW.65 and Prof. Mohammed Akhtar Siddiqui - PW.4 for inspection of said institution and submitted report as per EX P45 stating that institute is not at all prepared to run any of educational courses at present. The prosecution has got examined the Section Officer of Appeal Section, NCTE headquarters, Delhi as PW.37, Section Officer 272 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 of Appeal Division of NCTE, Delhi as PW.38, the Under Secretary of NCTE as PW.39, Deputy Secretary of NCTE headquarters, Delhi as PW.40, the Member Secretary of NCTE headquarters, Delhi as PW.44. Through the above said witnesses, the prosecution has got marked the appeal files of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution for the year 2005 as per Ex.P125, file relating to appeals preferred by the institution in the year 2004 as Ex.P126 and the 7th and 8th appeal committee meeting files as Ex.P127 and Ex.P128. PW.39 who was Under Secretary of NCTE headquarters, Delhi deposed that the appeal preferred by the Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution was put up by him as per Ex.P125(e) and the Appeal Committee by passing minutes in its meeting held on 7/11/2005 to 9/11/2005 decided to conduct an inspection of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution by appointing expert committee consisting of Prof.M.C.Sharma, Prof. Akhtar Siddiqui 273 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 and Dr.S.S.Rathi which could be seen from Ex.P125(m). The committee directed the above said visiting committee to inspect the institution on 17 th and 18th December 2005 and submit report as to infrastructure, institutional facilities. Accordingly, the said committee visited the institution on 17/11/2005 and submitted its report as per Ex.P45 stating that institution is not at all prepared to run any educational courses. The said report was placed before accused no.1 who was Vice- chairperson of the Appeal Committee on 29/11/2005 and the Member Secretary has recommended to reject the appeals filed by the institution in view of the said report which is found at Ex.P125(i). In response to the said recommendation, the accused no.1 made a note "Please discuss'' as per Ex.P125(j). The Member Secretary discussed with the accused no.1 and it was decided to place the said report before the next meeting of the Appeal Committee and said note is marked as Ex.P125(o). The next meeting of the 274 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Appeal Committee was held on 13th and 14th of December 2005 before which the above said Visiting Committee report was kept for consideration in which it was decided to reject the appeals preferred by the Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution. The said minutes of the meeting are contained in Page No.48 to 70 of Ex.P128 and marked as Ex.P128(e). The said minutes bears signature of accused no.1 on all pages in the capacity of chairperson of the Appeal Committee who was also vice chairperson of National Council for Teachers Education, Headquarters, New Delhi. The said minutes were put up before accused no.1 seeking for his approval on 14/12/2005 to which the accused no.1 made the following observations:
"Kindly submit these along with individual institutions files. In future also, it be adhered."
169. Subsequently on 3/1/2006, the said minutes were put up before accused no.1 seeking for his approval which is marked as Ex.P128(g) to which 275 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 on 4/1/2006, the accused no.1 approved the minutes of the appeal committee meeting held on 13th and 14th December 2005 except the case of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution and Gaziabad University. The said note is marked as Ex.P128(h) and for the purpose of better understanding the same is extracted below:
"The minutes of the appeal committee held on 13th and 14th December 2005 is approved except for the sl.no. 35, 41, 42 and 43 which have been withheld for certain modification for which case file be provided to the VCP and for the remaining, the approval of CP be obtained and orders be issued accordingly."
170. The above said note of accused no.1 makes it very clear that even after he signing the minutes of the meeting of appeal committee held on 13th and 14th December 2005 in which it was decided to reject the appeals of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution but when the said minutes were put up for final approval, the accused no.1 resiled from his earlier decision and withheld 276 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 decision on the said appeals. The evidence of PW.39 further reveals that, on 6/1/2006, he put up the minutes of the appeal committee meeting held on 13th and 14th December 2005 for approval of the Chairperson of NCTE headquarters who on 9/1/2006 directed the accused no.1 to call for the meeting of members of all the appeal committee and uniformed decision be obtained in respect of all the appeals by calling meeting on 13/1/2006. The above said notes are got marked as Ex.P128(i) and Ex.P128(j). But, the accused no.1 did not called meeting on 13/1/2006 as directed by the Chairperson of NCTE and till 19/1/2006, he kept the files with him and only on 19/1/2006, he approved the corrected version of the minutes and directed to obtain the approval of the Chairperson. The said note is got marked as per Ex.P128(k) and for the purpose of clarity, the said note is extracted below:
277 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
"Corrected version of the minutes stands approved. CP approval be sought."
171. Subsequently, as the accused no.1 did not called meeting of the members of appeal committee, the Chairperson of NCTE called the meeting of all members of appeal committee on 20/1/2006. In the said meeting, the non-official members of appeal committee by name Dr.S.S.Rathi and Prof. L.C.Singh made observation in respect of appeals of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution, Bengaluru as under:
"(iii) appeal submitted by Dr.Radhakrishna Teachers' Education, Bengaluru, Karnataka appearing at sl.no.1, 9 and 10 were considered by the committee together and appellant had made a single representation for all the three cases. It was decided to send a team of experts to the institution to ascertain the facts of the case before deciding the appeal. The team of experts, infact, visited the institution on 17 th November 2005 and submitted its report to the NCTE. There was no decision in the meeting to withhold decision in respect of any item and therefore it is observed as to how minutes in respect of few cases were withheld by VCP when the same was initially put up to CP on 6 th January 2006. Infact, withholding decision particularly in respect of cases relating to Dr.Radhakrishna Teachers Education, 278 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Bengaluru, Karnataka will nullify the visit to the institution by team of experts which also included one member of the appeal committee."
172. The above said observation of members of the appeal committee makes it very clear that, they opposed the act of the accused no.1 to withhold the minutes of the appeal committee dated 13 th and 14th December 2005 in which the appeals filed by the Dr.Radhakrishna Teachers Education was decided to be rejected. The members of the appeal committee have specifically observed that withholding decision in respect of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution will nullify the report of the visiting committee members who visited the institution on 17/11/2005 observing that there was no infrastructure to run any of the courses. Inspite of the strong opposition by the members of the appeal committee, the accused no.1 took special interest in withholding the decision to be taken on the appeals of Dr. Radhakrishna Teacher's Education Institution eventhough the minutes of the appeal committee 279 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 meeting reveals the decision to reject the said appeals as could be seen from Ex.P128(e) dated 4/1/2006. The accused no.1 did not stop there itself and when he became acting chairperson of NCTE when the above said minutes were put up before him, he called for opinion in respect of meeting of the then chairperson of the NCTE with members of the appeal committee which was held on 20/1/2006. The said note dated 3/2/2006 is got marked by the prosecution as per Ex.P128(n) and same is reproduced for the purpose of better understanding as under:
"With reference to para no.1, kindly let me know the legal validity of the meeting of CP with non- official members of the appeal committee in the light of the decision of the G.B. or any other provision of the Act, Rules and Regulations."
173. It is not in dispute that, on 27/1/2006, the accused no.1 was acting as a chairperson of National Council for Teachers Education, headquarters, Delhi as could be seen from 280 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 suggestions put to PW.39. The Under Secretary in respect of Ex.P127(n) has put up note to the effect that there was no legal infirmity in convening a meeting of the appeal committee members by the chairperson so as to enable him to decide the cases of appeal. The said observation is found at Ex.P128(o) dated 10/2/2006. The observation of Under Secretary at Ex.P128(o) also makes it very clear that, the accused no.1 after he became acting chairperson of NCTE headquarters held meetings with the appeal committee members on 6/2/2006 and also on 7/2/2006 in order to sort out the issues arising out of non-agreement by two members on minutes of the appeal committee as approved by the accused no.1 in the capacity of chairman of appeal committee. The evidence of PW.39 also reveals that, the accused no.1 as a chairperson approved the minutes of the appeal committee except the cases of Gaziabad Institute of Technology and also Dr.RTEI, Karnataka. The accused no.1 further ordered for 281 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 denova hearing in respect of the above said two institutions including that of Dr.RTEI. The said order of accused no.1 is found at Ex.P127(L). The evidence of PW.39 also reveals that the above said two cases of Gaziabad Institute of Technology and Dr.RTEI, Bengaluru were included in the agenda of appeal committee meeting held on 13 th and 14th March 2006 for which the appeal committee members observed that the decisions on the above said institutions was already taken by the committee and they disagreed as to hear the two appeals on denova basis. The said observations are found at Ex.P127(m). The Member Secretary has put up note to take decision on the appeals submitted by the above said two institutions as there was delay by submitting the original files of Regional Committee. Under Ex.P127(m), the accused no.1 has made following notes:
"In respect of A i.e., Gaziabad Institute of Management and Technology, Gaziabad, orders be issued as per the observations of the Appeal Committee."282 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
174. The above said act of accused no.1 makes it very clear that, he kept on pending decision on the appeals filed by the Dr.RTEI, Bengaluru, and as against the decision of appeal committee and also the minutes which he has signed rejecting the appeals of institution he decided to hear the appeals denova which is against Rule 11(3) of NCTE. For the purpose of better appreciation, the said Rule is extracted below:
"Rule 11 (3) - The Council shall decide every appeal as expeditiously as possible and ordinarily every appeal shall be decided on a perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, written arguments, if any, affidavits and after hearing such oral arguments as may be advanced."
175. Further, the material on record reveals that, the member secretary has put up note observing the disagreement of appeal committee members to consider the case of Dr.RTEI denova on 21/3/2006 as per Ex.P125(p), which is extracted as under:
283 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
"As the appeal committee did not agree to consider the case denova, decision on the appeal of institution may kindly be taken in the light of recommendation of appeal committee in the meeting held on 8/11/2005 and 14/12/2005."
176. As against the above said note, the accused no.1 directed to conduct inspection of Dr.RTEI by constituting visiting committee members consisting accused no.3 to 5 and directed the said committee to visit the institution on 7/6/2006. The said direction of accused no.1 is found at Ex.P125(q) which is as under:
"M.S. may kindly see the VIP references placed below received from the Office of Hon'ble Minister for HRD, All India Congress Committee, Ministry of Rural Development, etc.,
2. The representations contain certain grievances regarding the inspection being improper. Since the visiting team comprised of appeal committee members themselves, instead of deciding the appeal on the recommendation of such a team, we may depute another team to conduct a proper inspection as per Rules.
3. The team may comprise of a members of SRC and one subject expert each from Secondary Education and Elementary Education.284 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
4. In view of urgent need to report the action taken to Hon'ble Minister, it is proposed to conduct the visit on priority basis. The following team may conduct the visit:
1) Sri Rayar, Member, SRC;
2) Prof. I.S.Suri, SCERT, New Delhi;
3) Smt. Jiwan Jyothi Sidana;
5. M.S. may kindly issue necessary order in this regard and date be given as 7 th June,2006 for inspection."
177. In response to the said direction, the Member Secretary has put up note in the form of draft order informing all the above said three members to conduct inspection at Dr.RTEI and notice was issued to them. The said note is marked as Ex.P125(r) &(s).
178. The above said visiting committee consisting of accused no.3 to 5 have visited Dr.RTEI, Bengaluru on 7/6/2006 and submitted its report as per Ex.P125(u) stating that the infrastructure found at the institution are sufficient to run D.Ed., course. It is pertinent to note that, the accused no.1 unilaterally constituted the above said visiting committee consisting of accused no.3 to 5 and 285 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 received report from the said committee. When already three committees inspected the institution and submitted their respective report stating that the institution is not at all prepared to run any courses, there was no need for accused no.1 to constitute another committee consisting of accused no.3 to 5 and fixing the date of visit as 7/6/2006. Further, the accused no.1 has received the said report and without putting the said report before the appeal committee has decided to allow the appeal in respect of D.Ed., course and to reject the appeals in respect of B.Ed., and C.P.Ed., courses. These acts of the accused no.1 are clearly discloses that by abusing his official position he suo moto decided to constitute committee consisting of accused no.3 to 5 and based upon the said report decided the appeals of the institution. The prosecution has got marked the said order of accused no.1 as per ExP125(t) which is reproduced as under:
286 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
Chairperson's Desk:
"On receipt of reference from HRM Office, a team was constituted on June 5, 2006 to inspect Dr.Radhakrishna Institute, Vishwanathapura, Bengaluru to facilitate disposal of the institute's appeal. The team has submitted its report which is placed below. For course in physical education and B.Ed., level, the report seems to be not clearly recommending the recognition. In D.Ed., course, the recommendation supported by entries in other columns seems to be substantial.
2. Since the action taken report is to be conveyed to HRM office, we may take prompt action. The orders on appeal could be issued today itself, so that if there is any action on the part of SRC, they may consider in their meeting on June 12, 2006 and June 13, 2006."
179. So, the above said material on record discloses that, accused no.1 for both occasions i.e., while deputing 4th Inspection Team consisting of accused no.3 to 5 and while implementing the recommendation of 4th Inspection Team, he did not consult the issue relating to Dr.Radhakrishna Teachers Education Institution with appeal committee at NCTE, New Delhi and members of the appeal committee were kept under dark. The above said acts of accused no.1 clearly shows violating the 287 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 NCTE norms to get favourable report in order to grant recognition to Dr.Radhakrishna Teachers Education Institution to run D.Ed., course so as to help the accused no.2. The prosecution has also got marked the note put up by Under Secretary after submitting the report by the accused no.3 to 5 to the effect that before taking decisions on the appeals of Dr.Radhakrishna Teachers Education Institution, it is necessary to take considered decision after taking into account the report of the visiting team which inspected the institution on 17/11/2005, subsequent recommendation of the appeal committee in its meeting held on 14/12/2005 and also fresh report of the visiting team which visited the institution on 7/6/2006. The said note is got marked as per Ex.P125(v). But, accused no.1 rejecting the said note and without taking into account the appeal committee minutes dated 13 th and 14th December 2005, report of the visiting committee which visited the institution on 288 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 17/11/2005 decided to allow the appeal in respect of D.Ed., course. The said order of accused no.1 is got marked as Ex.P125(w) which is extracted below for the purpose of clear understanding:
"In r/o B.Ed., and C.P.Ed., the appeal is rejected. Regarding 'A' appeal accepted to remand back to SRC. Issue orders today, all the files placed below are returned."
180. In compliance of above said directions, the Under Secretary prepared draft orders and put up the same before accused no.1 seeking for his approval. The accused no.1 approved the said draft orders on 12/6/2006 by directing to issue the orders which could be seen from Ex.P125(x) and same is reproduced as under:
"Issue the orders and fax the same as directed at Page 101/C."
181. As per the above said order, the accused no.1, three separate orders came to be issued in respect of Dr.RTEI on 12/6/2006 itself and the said 289 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 orders were got marked by the prosecution as per Ex.P125(y).
182. The learned counsel for the accused no.1 with the help of cross-examination of PW.39 argued that the decision to allow the appeal in respect of D.Ed., course is not taken by the accused no.1 but whereas it is a collective decision of the committee and there are no documents to show that in any manner, accused no.1 influenced in allowing the appeal in respect of the said course. But, the above said evidence reveals that while constituting the visiting committee consisting of accused no.3 to 5, while accepting its report and also while issuing orders in terms of the above said report, the accused no.1 never consulted the appeal committee which itself makes it very clear that he has misused his position as a chairperson of NCTE headquarters. It is also pertinent to note that PW.36 who was Regional Director of Southern Regional Committee, Bengaluru in his cross-examination itself stated that 290 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 in respect of FIR lodged against accused no.2, the accused no.1 discussed the said issue with him for about 2-3 times. PW.36 in his cross-examination at Page No.19, Para No.9 deposed as under:
"The accused no.1 had discussed with me about FIR lodged against RTEI for about 2-3 times. At one occasion, the accused no.1 through phone discussed with me about FIR and he summoned me to the office at Delhi to discuss regarding FIR."
183. The above said evidence makes it very clear that inspite of having knowledge of furnishing fake FD receipts by the accused no.2 at the time of making application seeking for recognition, the accused no.1 decided to allow the appeal in respect of D.Ed., course of the institution. The act of the accused no.2 to constitute the visiting committee consisting of accused no.3 to 5, rejecting the minutes of the appeal committee dated 13 th and 14th December 2005 which were signed by him and also rejecting the visiting committee report dated 17/11/2005 and asking the accused no.3 to 5 to 291 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 visit the institution on 7/6/2006 and submit report on the very same day makes it very clear that, there is a conspiracy between all the accused persons. Though the learned counsel for the accused no.1 has argued that, there was no direct communication or contact or access between the accused persons, but the above said circumstances makes it very clear that there was a criminal conspiracy between the accused persons. At this juncture, it is fruitful to rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.705/024 in the matter between Gurdeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab dated 11/8/2025 while discussing Section 120-B of IPC at Para No.17 observed as under:
"17. As regards the second limb of the appellant's contention, it is well established that the offence of criminal conspiracy under section 120B IPC, by its very nature, is seldom capable of being proved by direct evidence. Being a clandestine agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act, or a 292 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 lawful act by unlawful means, conspiracy is typically established through circumstantial evidence, patterns of conduct, and the cumulative interferences drawn from the interactions of the accused persons.
17.1. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu6, this Court underscored that conspiracy is inherently covert and rarely leaves behind direct traces. Its existence can be inferred from the surrounding facts and circumstances, the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the occurrence, and the manner in which the crime unfolds. It was further held that every conspirator need not commit an overtact to be held liable, the agreement itself constitutes the offence. What is required is a concert of purpose and unity of design. It was also emphasized that conspiracy is an independent offence and may be punishable even if the substantive offence contemplated by the conspirators does not ultimately materialize. The following paragraphs are pertinent in this regard:
"97. Mostly, conspiracies are proved by circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is seldom an open affair. Usually, both the existence of the 293 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused (per Wadhwa, J. in Nalini case [(1999) 5 SCC 253 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 691] at p. 516). The well-known rule governing circumstantial evidence is that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable evidence and "the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible"
(Tanviben Pankajkumar case [Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 156 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1004] , SCC p. 185, para 45). G.N. Ray, J. in Tanviben Pankajkumar [Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 156 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1004] observed that this Court should not allow suspicion to take the place of legal proof." 17.2. Similarly, in Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India7, it was reiterated that conspiracy is a continuing offence, which begins with the formation of the unlawful agreement and continues until the common objective is either achieved or abandoned. The court clarified that the crime is complete with the agreement itself and that no overt act is necessary to sustain a conviction under Section 120B IPC. The 294 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 relevant paragraphs of the said decision are usefully extracted below:
"10. In Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra [(1981) 2 SCC 443 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 477 :
(1981) 3 SCR 68] it was held that for an offence under Section 120-BIPC, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the conspirators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act, the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. In Noor Mohammad Mohd.
Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra [(1970) 1 SCC 696 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 274 :
(1971) 1 SCR 119] it was held that Section 120-BIPC makes the criminal conspiracy as a substantive offence which offence postulates an agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done an act by illegal means. If the offence itself is to commit an offence, no further steps are needed to be proved to carry the agreement into effect. In R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration [(1963) 1 SCR 253 : AIR 1962 SC 1821 : (1962) 2 Cri LJ 805] it was further held that it is not necessary that each member of a conspiracy must know all the details of the conspiracy. In Shivanarayan Laxminarayan Joshi v.
State of Maharashtra [(1980) 2 SCC 465 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 493] this Court emphasized that a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same. The offence can be only proved largely from the inferences drawn from acts or illegal omission 295 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design."
17.3. In Sudhir Shantilal Mehta v. CBI8, the Court again affirmed that due to the covert nature of conspiracies, courts must necessarily look to the overall circumstances, the acts of the accused, and the coherence of their conduct to infer a conspiracy. The presence of a common intention and the coordinated acts of multiple persons can give rise to a legitimate inference of an unlawful agreement. The relevant paragraphs read as under:
"Criminal conspiracy
113. Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence. It is punishable independent of other offences; its ingredients being:
(i) an agreement between two or more persons.
(ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either
(a) an illegal act;
(b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means.
It is now, however, well settled that a conspiracy ordinarily is hatched in secrecy. The court for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether the said offence has been committed or not may take into consideration the circumstantial evidence. While however doing so, it must bear in mind that meeting 296 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 of the minds is essential; mere knowledge or discussion would not be. As the question has been dealt with in some detail in Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2004 (R.Venkatakrishnan v. CBI [(2009) 11 SCC 737] ), it is not necessary for us to dilate thereupon any further."
....
116. In K.R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala [(2005) 12 SCC 631 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 686] this Court held: (SCC pp. 636-38, paras 11 & 13) "11. Section 120-A IPC defines 'criminal conspiracy'. According to this section when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done (i) an illegal act, or (ii) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. In Major E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay [AIR 1961 SC 1762 : (1962) 2 SCR 195] Subba Rao, J., speaking for the Court has said: (AIR p. 1778, para 31) '31. ... The gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done. So too, it is not an ingredient of the offence that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts.' ***
13. To constitute a conspiracy, meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is the first and primary condition and it is not necessary that all the conspirators must 297 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 know each and every detail of the conspiracy. Neither it is necessary that every one of the conspirators takes active part in the commission of each and every conspiratorial acts. The agreement amongst the conspirators can be inferred by necessary implication. In most of the cases, the conspiracies are proved by the circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is seldom an open affair. The existence of conspiracy and its objects are usually deduced from the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the accused involved in the conspiracy. While appreciating the evidence of the conspiracy, it is incumbent on the court to keep in mind the well-known rule governing circumstantial evidence viz. each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable evidence and the circumstances proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn, and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. The criminal conspiracy is an independent offence in the Penal Code. The unlawful agreement is sine qua non for constituting offence under the Penal Code and not an accomplishment. Conspiracy consists of the scheme or adjustment between two or more persons which may be express or implied or partly express and partly implied. Mere knowledge, even discussion, of the plan would not per se constitute conspiracy. The offence of conspiracy shall continue till the termination of agreement."
(See also P.K. Narayanan v. State of Kerala [(1995) 1 SCC 142 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 215] .)" 298 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
Thus, it is crystal clear that the offence of criminal conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence, nor is it necessary that all conspirators participate in every stage of the commission of the offence. What is material is the existence of a prior agreement - express or implied - to commit an unlawful act, or a lawful act by unlawful means. Once such agreement is established, even by way of inference from circumstantial evidence, the legal consequences under Section 120B IPC follow."
184. In view of the above said circumstantial evidence, an inference can be drawn that accused persons hatched criminal conspiracy only in order to see that recognition would be granted in respect of D.Ed., course to the institution of accused no.2. Further, the prosecution has also brought on record material to show that the Southern Regional Committee was forced to implement the order of accused no.1 allowing the appeal in respect of D.Ed., course of Dr.RTEI. The Southern Regional 299 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Committee after receiving the order of NCTE as per Ex.P125(y) placed the same before its 112 th meeting held on 12th and 13th June 2006 and for want of additional details, no decision was taken on the issue of Dr.Radhakrishna Teachers Education Institution, Bengaluru, Karnataka. The said minutes are found at Ex.P36 and the relevant portion at item no.49 is got marked as Ex.P36(b). Subsequently, the said order was put up in the 113th meeting of Southern Regional Committee held on 6 th and 7th June, 2006 at item no.19 and the Southern Regional Committee decided to refer the matter of Dr.RTEI to the NCTE headquarters as the records and reports of the above said institution were with headquarters. The said minutes are got marked as per Ex.P37 and relevant portion at item no.19 is marked as Ex.P37(b). The prosecution has also got marked the letter dated 20/7/2006 addressed by the Regional Director of Southern Regional Committee to the member secretary of National Council for Teachers 300 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Education, headquarters New Delhi stating that, matter is referred back to NCTE New Delhi for necessary action along with the extracts of the above said minutes which could be seen from Ex.P38. In response to the said letter, the NCTE headquarters on 16/8/2006 directed the Southern Regional Committee to implement the orders on the ground that the appellate authority has already taken decision in respect of three appeals preferred by the Dr.RTEI and accordingly orders were issued on 12/6/2006. The NCTE headquarters directed the Southern Regional Committee to implement the said orders and to send compliance report. The said letter is got marked as per Ex.P39. Finally, on the basis of Ex.P39, the Southern Regional Committee in its 116th meeting held on 22 nd and 23rd August 2006 decided to accord recognition to the D.Ed., course of Dr.RTEI and an order came to be issued as per Ex.P41 on 31/8/2006 to that effect. The said minutes are got marked as per Ex.P40. Though it is 301 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 the exclusive domain of Southern Regional Committee to decide whether to grant recognition to any of the courses, but the above said evidence on record makes it very clear that accused no.1 made the Southern Regional Committee to implement his decision in the form of according recognition to the D.Ed., course of Dr.RTEI.
185. It is also to be noted that, the accused no.1 has constituted the 4th visiting committee consisting of accused no.3 to 5 on the ground that, the visiting team which inspected the institution on 17/11/2005 comprised of appeal committee members. But, as against his noting dated 5/6/2006 at Ex.P125(q), the accused no.1 nominated accused no.3 as one of the member of 4th visiting committee knowingfully well that he is one of the member of Southern Regional Committee and report will be once again forwarded to the accused no.3 who is member of Regional Committee. The said act of accused no.1 against his noting clearly establish the 302 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 criminal conspiracy between accused no.1 and accused no.3 because accused no.3 submitted favourable report regarding recognition of D.Ed., course to Dr.RTEI which was not done by visiting committee which visited the institution 17/11/2005. When already three committee reports were available on record, what was the necessity to appoint 4 th visiting committee to get report by accused no.1. Further, the accused no.1 without passing necessary orders on the appeals filed by the Dr.RTEI from 13/1/2006 to 12/8/2006 violated Rule 11(4) of NCTE which speaks that the Council shall make every endeavour to dispose of every memorandum of appeal within a period of three months from the date of its filing.
186. So far as the role of accused no.3 to 5 is concerned, the prosecution has got marked mahazar as per Ex.P115 which was conducted at Dr.RTEI, Vishwanathapuram, Devanahalli on 28/6/2008. The said mahazar was drawn in the presence of 303 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 PW.34 and photographs were taken as per Ex.P118(a) to Ex.P118(g) which reveals that the institution did not had any facilities to run any of the teaching courses. The PW.33 was Sub Inspector, CBI, ACB Branch, Bengaluru conducted inspection panchanama in the presence of PW.34 and CW.82 on 28/6/2008 at Dr.Radhakrishna Teachers' Education Institution, Devanahalli, Bengaluru. He apart from drawing mahazar as per Ex.P115 has also prepared the assessment proforma for inspection as contemplated under Section 14 of NCTE Act comparing the observations made by all the four committees as to the institutional infrastructures. PW.34 has also deposed as to the drawing of mahazar and assessment proforma in his presence on the above said date. In entire cross- examination of PW.33 and PW.34 nothing worthwhile has been elicited to discard their evidence. The Ex.P116, the assessment proforma and also the panchanama at Ex.P115 which were 304 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 conducted on the above said date reveals the following shortcomings in the infrastructure of the institution.
1) On date of inspection no principal/Head of the Department is in position were found,
2) No record showing the appointment of teachers was furnished,
3) Number of teachers with qualifications as per NCTE norms was not furnished,
4) No teachers for physical Education, Art, were available,
5) Two class rooms were available but only primary schools were running,
6) 4 labs were found in deteriorate conditions not being used for many months,
7) Principal room and staff room are common,
8) Playground was shown outside the premises,
9) One science laboratory was available,
10) One psychology laboratory was available, 305 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
11) For educational technology lab only one room with TV, VCR with broken chairs were being used,
12) 5 number of computers with bad conditions/not in working condition was found,
13) Access to internet was not available,
14) The details of practice teaching was not furnished,
15) The distance of practice teaching schools was more than 30 Kms.,
16) No physical education resources was found,
17) The facilities in the labs are not adequate,
18) No gymnasium/multipurpose hall was available, and
19) Facilities for anatomy gymnasium was not available.
187. Looking to these discrepancies, it is clear that the recommendation of 4th visiting committee consisting of accused no.3 to 5 was contrary to the physical infrastructure available at the institution. 306 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 The accused no.3 to 5 by abusing their official position in collusion with other accused persons dishonestly submitted their report as per Ex.P125(u) mentioning the infrastructural, instructional and other facilities have been assessed with reference to NCTE norms and recommended for D.Ed., course for which the institute is not at all eligible as per norms and procedures of NCTE. If the committee consisting of accused no.3 to 5 would not have recommended for recognition then NCTE would not have recognised Dr.Radhakrishna Teachers' Education Institution, Bengaluru and thereby avoided the students being cheated by the institution. The above said discussion makes it very clear that there was planned criminal conspiracy between the accused person only in order to help the accused no.2 in the matter of getting recognition to the D.Ed., course.
188. The learned counsel for the accused no.1 has argued that in respect of the acts of the accused no.1, there is a protection under Section 28 of the 307 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 NCTE Act, as such the prosecution is not sustainable. The perusal of the said section makes it very clear that, there is a protection for action taken in good faith. But, the above said acts of accused no.1 shows that he has not acted in bonafide or in good faith and only in order to help the accused no.2, accused no.1 disposed of appeal in favour of accused no.2. Therefore, the above said arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the accused no.1 does not hold water and accused no.1 cannot take shelter under Section 28 of the Act.
189. The learned counsel for the accused no.3 to 5 has argued that, the accused no.3 to 5 came into picture only when accused no.1 appointed them as members of the visiting committee and they have no malafide intention in submitting report on the basis of which the recognition was accorded. Hence, accused no.3 to 5 cannot be held guilty. But, it is pertinent to note that on perusal of Ex.P125(u)- the report submitted by accused no.3 to 5 when 308 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 compared with mahazar Ex.P115 and the assessment proforma Ex.P116 makes it very clear that even though there were no infrastructure facilities in the institution, the accused no.3 to 5 submitted favourable report at the instance of accused no.1 and aided in grant of recognition to the institution of accused no.2. Therefore, the malafide intention of accused no.3 to 5 in submitting false report makes it very clear that they have also played prominent role in hatching criminal conspiracy with accused no.1 and 2 to see that recognition was granted to the institution of accused no.2. As per explanation attached to Section 415 of IPC, dishonest concealment of facts is also deception within the meaning of 'cheating'. The accused no.3 to 5 with fraudulent and dishonest intention submitted false report as per Ex.P125(u) eventhough there was no infrastructure at the institution of accused no.2 which was accepted by accused no.1 and on the basis of it, the recognition was granted which made 309 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 the students to take admission in the institution of accused no.2 by paying donation /fees and thereby the accused no.1 to 5 with criminal conspiracy fraudulently deceived the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE and students. Hence, the accused no.1, 3 to 5 committed the offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w Section 417 of IPC. With the help of above said evidence and materials on record, the prosecution has proved that the accused no.2 has committed the offences punishable under Section 417, 420, 468, 471 r/w Section 120-B of IPC. Accordingly, I answer Point No.2 to 4 in the 'Affirmative'.
POINT NO.1:
190. The learned counsel for the accused no.1 has argued that, since accused no.1, 3 to 5 are public servants, sanction as contemplated under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., and Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act is necessary and without sanction, they cannot be prosecuted. It is also canvassed that, 310 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 the Investigating Officer has no authority to conduct the investigation as contemplated under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The evidence of Investigating Officer PW.46 and charge-sheet reveals that, the accused no.1, 3 to 5 as they were retired from their respective posts, sanction was not obtained. The suggestion was put to PW.46 to the effect that, even at the time of filing the charge-
sheet, accused no.1, 3 to 5 were in their respective post which was denied. The records reveals that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has collected documents as to the service particulars of accused no.1 and 5 at document D-68 of which court has taken judicial note which reveals that the accused no.1 was retired on 30/6/2009, whereas accused no.5 was retired on 30/10/2008. The charge-sheet was came to be filed on 18/11/2009. Hence, as on the date of submitting the charge-sheet and also as on the date of taking cognizance i.e., on 24/12/2009 the accused no.1 311 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 and 5 were not in service. Hence, the sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act is not necessary. It is also pertinent to note that, the accused no.1, 3 to 5 when they challenged rejection of their application seeking for discharge in Criminal Revision Petition No.642 of 2022 c/w Criminal Revision Petition No.679 and 669 of 2022 have not produced any documents to show their date of retirement from the service. Hence, it has to be accepted that, as on the date of filing the charge- sheet, the accused no.1, 3 to 5 were retired from service. In this regard, it is useful to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter between State of Kerala Vs. V.Padmanabhan Nair reported in (1999) 5 SCC 690, wherein it was held as under:
"A. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - S.6 - accused ceasing to be a public servant on the date of taking cognizance of offences under the Act - sanction not necessary - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.197."312 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
191. At this juncture, it is also fruitful to rely upon decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.5267-5268 of 2024 dated 13/12/2024, in the matter between Om Prakash Yadav Vs. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay & Others. The Hon'ble Apex after considering all the relevant decisions laid down following guidelines at Para No.65 as under:
"65. Thus, the legal position that emerges from a conspectus of all the decisions referred to above is that it is not possible to carve out one universal rule that can be uniformly applied to the multifarious facts and circumstances in the context of which the protection under Section 197 CrPC is sought for. Any attempt to lay down such a homogeneous standard would create unnecessary rigidity as regards the scope of application of this provision. In this context, the position of law may be summarized as under: -
(i) The object behind the enactment of Section 197 CrPC is to protect responsible public servants against institution of possibly false or 313 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act in their official capacity. It is to ensure that the public servants are not prosecuted for anything which is done by them in the discharge of their official duties, without any reasonable cause.
The provision is in the form of an assurance to the honest and sincere officers so that they can perform their public duties honestly, to the best of their ability and in furtherance of public interest, without being demoralized.
(ii) The expression "any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty" in Section 197 CrPC must neither be construed narrowly nor widely and the correct approach would be to strike a balance between the two extremes. The section should be construed strictly to the extent that its operation is limited only to those acts which are discharged in the "course of duty". However, once it has been ascertained that the act or omission has indeed been committed by the public servant in the discharge of his duty, then a liberal and wide construction must be 314 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 given to a particular act or omission so far as its "official" nature is concerned.
(iii) It is essential that the Court while considering the question of applicability of Section 197 CrPC truly applies its mind to the factual situation before it. This must be done in such a manner that both the aspects are taken care of viz., on one hand, the public servant is protected under Section 197 CrPC if the act complained of falls within his official duty and on the other, appropriate action be allowed to be taken if the act complained of is not done or purported to be done by the public servant in the discharge of his official duty.
(iv) A public servant can only be said to act or purport to act in the discharge of his official duty, if his act is such that it lies within the scope and range of his official duties. The act complained of must be integrally connected or directly linked to his duties as a public servant for the purpose of affording protection under Section 197 CrPC. Hence, it is not the duty which requires an examination so much as the "act" itself.
(v) One of the foremost tests which was laid down in this regard was - whether the public 315 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 servant, if challenged, can reasonably claim that, what he does, he does in virtue of his office.
(vi) Later, the test came to be re-modulated. It was laid down that there must be a reasonable connection between the act done and the discharge of the official duty and the act must bear such relation to the duty such that the accused could lay a reasonable, but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that his actions were in the course of performance of his duty. Therefore, the sine qua non for the applicability of this section is that the offence charged, be it one of commission or omission, must be committed by the public servant either in his official capacity or under the color of the office held by him such that there is a direct or reasonable connection between the act and the official duty.
(vii) If in performing his official duty, the public servant acts in excess of his duty, the excess by itself will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant from protection under Section 197 CrPC if it is found that there existed a reasonable connection between the 316 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 act done and the performance of his official duty.
(viii) It is the "quality" of the act that must be examined and the mere fact that an opportunity to commit an offence is furnished by the official position would not be enough to attract Section 197 CrPC.
(ix) The legislature has thought fit to use two distinct expressions "acting" or "purporting to act". The latter expression means that even if the alleged act was done under the color of office, the protection under Section 197 CrPC can be given. However, this protection must not be excessively stretched and construed as being limitless. It must be made available only when the alleged act is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act.
(x) There cannot be any universal rule to determine whether there is a reasonable connection between the act done and the official duty, nor is it possible to lay down such a rule. However, a "safe and sure test" would be to consider if the omission or neglect on the part of the public servant to commit the act complained of would have made him 317 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 answerable for a charge of dereliction of his official duty. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, the protection under Section 197 CrPC can be granted since there was every connection with the act complained of and the official duty of the public servant.
(xi) The provision must not be abused by public servants to camouflage the commission of a crime under the supposed color of public office. The benefit of the provision must not be extended to public officials who try to take undue advantage of their position and misuse the authority vested in them for committing acts which are otherwise not permitted in law. In such circumstances, the acts committed must be considered dehors the duties which a public servant is required to discharge or perform.
(xii) On an application of the tests as aforesaid, if on facts, it is prima facie found that the act or omission for which the accused has been charged has a reasonable connection with the discharge of his official duty, the applicability of Section 197 CrPC cannot be denied.
66. At the cost of repetition, we say that the position of law on the application of Section 318 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 197 CrPC is clear - that it must be decided based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. This Court has held in a legion of decisions that any misuse or abuse of powers by a public servant to do something that is impermissible in law like threatening to provide a tutored statement or trying to obtain signatures on a blank sheet of paper; causing the illegal detention of an accused; engaging in a criminal conspiracy to create false or fabricated documents; conducting a search with the sole object of harassing and threatening individuals, amongst others, cannot fall under the protective umbrella of Section 197 Cr.PC."
192. In view of above said position of law, the benefit of Section 197 of Cr.P.C., cannot be extended to accused no.1, 3 to 5 who have taken undue advantage of their position and misused the authority vested in them for committing the acts which are otherwise permitted in law. It is also to be noted that, hatching criminal conspiracy or engaging 319 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 in criminal conspiracy is not part of public duty. Therefore, sanction as against the accused no.1, 3 to 5 is not at all necessary. So far as the competency of PW.46 to conduct investigation is concerned, admittedly PW.46 was Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch. Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with the persons authorised to investigate and as per clause (a), in case of Delhi Special Police Establishment, the Police Officer not below the rank of Inspector of Police shall conduct the investigation. The Gazette Notification of Government of India bearing No.228/7/2003-AVDII dated 28 th February 2005 makes it very clear that the powers and jurisdiction of members of Delhi Special Police Establishment was extended to the whole of State of Karnataka for the investigation for all types of cases involving either Central Government Servants or Officers belonging to Public Sector Undertakings under the Central Government, under different State 320 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 and Central Acts. The Government of Karnataka vide Notification No.HD 234 PCR 2004 dated 1/1/2005 by exercising the powers conferred under Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and in super session of previous orders / notifications accorded consent under the above said section for the exercise of powers and jurisdiction by the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment within the State of Karnataka for the investigation of all types of cases involving either Central Government Servants or Officers belonging to Public Sector Undertakings under the Central Government, under different State and Central Acts.
193. In view of Section 17(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, and in the light of the above said Notifications, PW.46 is authorised to investigate into the present case on hand. Hence, no fault can be found in his capacity to conduct the investigation.
194. The Learned counsel for the accused no.1 has pressed into service decision of Hon'ble Apex 321 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Court reported in 2025 STPL 3075 SC between C.Kamalakannan Vs. State of Tamilnadu to support his arguments. The perusal of the said decision reveals that, as the prosecution failed to lead primary evidence in the form of original postal cover, the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 120-B, 468, 471 r/w Section 109 of IPC was set aside. But, the said decision is distinguishable from the facts in the present case on hand.
195. Further, the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2023 STPL 9784 SC between A.Srinivasreddy Vs. Rakesh Sharma and another was pressed into service which reveals that sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., is required only to such public servants whose appointing authority is either Central or State Government and not to every public servant. There is no dispute as to the said position of law. In the said decision, the appellant was serving as an Assistant General Manager, State 322 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Bank of India, Overseas Bank at Hyderabad who was not holding the post from which he can be removed from service except by or with the sanction of the Government. Hence, it has been held that, provisions of Section 197 of Cr.P.C., are applicable only in case of public servant who is not removable from service by or with the sanction of the Government. Further, at para no.54 of the said decision makes it very clear that, the sanction contemplated under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is required only in respect of the offences committed by public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his officials duties, whereas the offences contemplated in the P.C.Act are those which cannot be treated as acts either directly or even purportedly done in the discharge of his official duties.
196. The learned counsel for the accused no.2 also pressed into service the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2023 STPL 7938 SC in the matter 323 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 between A.Srinivasulu Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police in which it was held that sanction to prosecute public servant for the offences punishable under Section 420, 468 and 471 of IPC is necessary. The said decision was pressed into service in A. Srinivas Reddy's case reported in 2023 STPL 9784 SC. The perusal of the said decision reveals that no previous sanction under Section 19(1) of P.C.Act is necessary, if the Public Officer retired from his service either at the time of filing the final report or at the time of taking cognizance of the offence. There is no dispute as to the said position of law but, in the case on hand the accused no.1, 3 to 5 have misused their respective position with malafide intention only to see that the institution of accused no.2 is recognised to run D.Ed., course. The facts of the above said case are distinguishable from the present case on hand. The learned counsel for the accused no.1 also pressed into service decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2025 STPL 1083 324 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 SC between Dinesh Kumar Mathur Vs. State of M.P. and others in which the provisions of Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of IPC were considered. The perusal of entire Judgment reveals that the accused therein acting under the provisions of Madhyapradesh Gruha Nirmana Mandala Adiniyama, 1972 discharged his duties which are protected under Section 83 of the Act as same are protected as action taken in good faith. But, with due respect, the said decision cannot be made applicable to the case on hand, as the accused no.1 had not acted in good faith, as such protection under Section 28 of NCTE Act are not available to him. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the 'Negative'.
197. POINT NO.8 : In view of the above discussion, the accused no.1 to 5 found guilty for the offences alleged against them in the charge- sheet. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following:
325 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
ORDER Acting under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C, the Accused No.1, 3 to 5 are convicted for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also for the offences punishable under Section 417 r/w Section 120-B of IPC.
Acting under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C., Accused No.2 is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471 r/w Section 120-B of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond
executed by the accused persons
and their sureties are hereby
discharged.
******
**
* **
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerised by her, Script corrected and then pronounced by me in open court this the 23rd day of December 2025.) SATISH Digitally signed by SATISH BALI BALI Date: 2025.12.23 17:20:09 +0530 (Satish J. Bali) XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengalulru.326 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
ORDER ON SENTENCE Heard the Learned counsel for the accused as well as Learned Public Prosecutor.
2. The Learned counsel for the accused no.1 to 5 submitted that, all the accused persons are age-
old suffering from old-age ailments. The Learned counsel for the accused no.1 submitted that accused no.1 has passed the orders in good faith as such his actions are protected under Section 28 of NCTE Act. The said point has been considered by this court while delivering the Judgment and a detailed discussion is made on the said point. Hence, the said point will not come to the aid of accused no.1. Further, the Learned counsel filed memo along with medical records and Lab Reports which reveals that accused no.1 is suffering from lumbar spondylotic. The Learned counsel for the accused no.2 filed memo along with medical reports 327 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 and records which reveals that he is suffering from Disc bulge C4-C5. The Learned counsel for the accused no.3 filed prescriptions and Lab Report which does not reveal from which ailment he is suffering. The learned counsel for the accused no.4 and 5 filed memo along with medical reports of accused no.4 as well as that of her husband Sri Mohinder Pal s/o Kundan Lal Sidana. The perusal of the said medical records reveals that the accused no.4 has underwent spine surgery in respect of L5-S1 on 28/3/2025 at Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Gurgaon, Haryana. Whereas, the medical records of husband of accused no.4 reveals that he underwent chemotherapy on 1/5/2025 and 2/5/2025 in respect of right kidney. The Learned counsel for the accused no.5 filed memo along with his medical reports and prescriptions which reveals that he is suffering from knee pain, hoarseness of voice, carotid atherosclerotic disease. The above said medical records reveals that accused no.1 and 328 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 5 are aged about 77 years, accused no.2 is aged about 64 years, accused no.3 is aged about 68 years, and accused no.4 is aged about 55 years as on date.
3. On the other hand, the Learned Public Prosecutor submits that accused persons have committed crime in relation to educational institution which affects the whole country and society at large. It is also submitted that, taking into the interest of the society and also the educational institutions in the country prayed to impose maximum punishment for the alleged offences.
4. The accused no.1, 3 to 5 are convicted for the offences punishable under Section 417 r/w Section 120-B of IPC and also for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Whereas, the accused no.2 is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471 r/w Section 120-B of IPC.
329 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
5. The offence under Section 13(1) (d) of P.C.Act, 1988 is punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. The alleged offences were committed during the year 2003 to 2009.
6. The offence under Section 415 of IPC is punishable under Section 417 of IPC prescribes imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.
7. The offence under Section 420 of IPC is punishable with an imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
8. The offence under Section 468 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
9. The offence under Section 471 of IPC is punishable in the same manner as prescribed for 330 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 the offence of forgery i.e., with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.
10. The offence under Section 120-B of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a Judgment reported in AIR 2004 SC 2317 in the matter between N. Bhargavan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and also in another decision reported in 2006 AIR SCW 5267 between The State Vs. A. Parthiban, held that the provisions of the probation of offenders Act are not applicable to the cases covered under the P.C.Act, 1988.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a Judgment reported in AIR 2013 SC 1682 in the matter of Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal held that gravity of the offence under the PC Act is not to be judged on the quantum of bribe, as corruption is not to be 331 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 justified in degree. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in a Judgment reported in 2002 SCC Online 412 in the matter between State of Gujarath Vs. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhaibai Shah held that corruption is the malignant manifestation of a malady menacing the morality of men. There is a common perception that corruption in India has spread to all corners of public life and is currently choking the constitutional aspirations enshrined in the preamble. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in another Judgment reported in (2006) 8 SCC 693 in the matter between State of M.P. Vs. Shambhu Dayal Nagar expressed its concern while taking lenient view while sentencing a public servant and observed that the public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post. 332 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in another Judgment reported in AIR 2001 SC 147 between Madhukar Bhaskarrao Vs. State of Maharastra held that the case is pending before the court since long time is not a special ground for reducing minimum sentence.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in another decision reported in AIR 2015 SC 2678 between Shanthilal Meena Vs. state of NCT, Delhi, exhaustively dealt with sentencing policy and was of the opinion that the punishment for offences under P.C. Act, there is no scope for reforming the convicted public servant unless the court awards appropriately deterrent punishment taking note of the nature of the offence, status of the offender.
15. In view of above settled ratio, this court should bear in mind the expectation of the people to prevent corruption by providing prompt conviction and stern sentence.
333 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
16. As per Section 16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, where sentence of fine is to be imposed under sub clause (2) of Section 13, the Court shall take into consideration the pecuniary resources or property for which the offender is unable to account satisfactorily.
17. In the case on hand, the accused no. 1, 3 to 5 on the basis of false report prompted the students to take admissions to the D.Ed., course for the academic year 2006-07. Further, the accused no.2 on the basis of fabricated order of National Council for Teacher's Education, New Delhi and order of State Government took admission to his institution for the academic year 2004-05, 2005-06 by collecting huge donation, fees from the students. The accused no.2 has cheated the students as well as Southern Regional Committee and also National Council for Teacher's Education, Headquarters, New Delhi by submitting fake FD receipts, fabricated 334 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 attendance registers, students registers and obtained recognition.
18. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and for the reasons stated herein above, it is just and necessary to strike out the balance between the maximum and minimum sentence prescribed under the law. Therefore, considering the above said all aspects and taking into account the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed supra, and also considering the mitigating factors such as age of the offenders and their antecedents, this Court, proceed to pass the following:
ORDERS The Accused No.1, 3 to 5 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of THREE years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- [Rupees Two Lakhs only] each, and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX months each for the offence punishable 335 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Accused No.1, 3 to 5 are also sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of ONE year each, and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only] each for the offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC, and in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of THREE months.
The Accused No.1, 3 to 5 are also sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX months each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand only] each for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC, and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of TWO months.
The Accused No.2 shall undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of FIVE years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- [Rupees Three Lakhs only] for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo 336 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 further Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX months.
The Accused No.2 shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of FIVE years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- [Rupees Three Lakhs only] for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX months.
The Accused No.2 shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of TWO years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh only] for the offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of THREE months.
The Accused No.2 is also sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand only] for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC, and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of TWO months.337 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
All the above said sentences shall run concurrently.
The accused No.1 to 5 are entitled for set off in respect of the period for which they have already undergone during the trial.
Office is directed to furnish free copy of the Judgment to the accused No.1 to 5 forthwith.
*** (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerised by her, Script corrected and then pronounced by me in open court this the 23rd day of December 2025.) SATISH Digitally signed by SATISH BALI BALI Date: 2025.12.23 17:20:24 +0530 (SATISH J. BALI) XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE CHART FOR WITNESSES EXAMINED:
Prosecution Name of Witness Description Witness No. 1 Prof. Ramesh Ghanta -
2 Dr. S.N. Prasad -
3 R. Nagaraj -
4 Mohd. Akhtar Siddiqui -338 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
5 Venkatesh Gowda -
6 Nagaraj. B.N. -
7 Manjunath -
8 Ramaswamy -
9 Malathi. S -
10 B.N. Krishnappa -
11 S.V. Kemparaju -
12 Gultaj Adeeba -
13 G. Ponnuswamy -
14 Smt. Leelavathi -
15 Sri Shivalingaiah -
16 Sri Jayakumar -
17 A. Suresh -
18 M. Selvarani -
19 S. Lakshmi -
20 M. Punitha -
21 M. Govindraj -
22 M.N. Somashekhar -
23 S. Ramananda -
24 M.S. Sathyanarayan -
25 S. Sorna -
26 Suresh Francis -
27 V. Jayaraman -
28 G. Kokila -
29 Shri Thomas Raj -
30 C. Rajesh Handwriting Expert 31 Jacob Thomas Panch Witness 32 Usha -339 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
33 Sri T.T. Somasundar IO 34 Sri Gururaj Panch Witness 35 D.N. Srinivasappa Panch Witness 36 Mohan Das -
37 Mamta Kukreti -
38 Smt. Jojiyna Lakra -
39 Sri Mrithyunjay Jha -
40 Sri L.R. Agarwal -
41 Smt. M. Kalamani -
42 Smt.K. Bhagyalakshmi -
43 Sri S.N. Jagannath -
44 Shri V.C. Tiwari -
45 Shri C. Thirumalesh -
46 Sri Ramachandran IO CHART FOR EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS:
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/ Attested by Ex.P1 Letter from SRC dated PW.1 13/06/2005 Ex.P2 Report (20 sheets) -"-
Ex.P2(a) -"-
Ex.P2(b) Signatures of PW.1
Ex.P2(c)
Ex.P2(d)
Ex.P2(e) Signature with seal of Mr. -"-
Theerthe Gowda.
Ex.P2(f) -"-
Ex.P2(g) Signature of Prof. Kelu
340 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
Ex.P2(h)
Ex.P2(i)
Ex.P3 Office copy of the letter PW.2
received by PW.2 from the
office of NCTE
Ex.P4 Report (Booklet starts from -"-
page no.1 to 18 and 11
sheets).
Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW.2 -"-
Ex.P4(b) Signature of Shastry -"-
Ex.P5 Seizure Memo PW.3
Ex.P5(a) Signature of PW.3 -"-
Ex.P6 Seizure Memo -"-
Ex.P6(a) Signature of PW.3 -"-
Ex.P7 Entire file - Document No.2 -"-
Ex.P7(a)(i) Order dated 24/12/2012 of PW.44 NCTE in respect of Dr. RTEI.
Ex.P8 Application to NCTE on PW.3
29/12/2003
Ex.P9 NOC -"-
Ex.P9(a) Signature of PW.22 PW.22
Ex.P10 Covering letter PW.3
Ex.P11 Letter by Regional Director -"-
Ex.P12 Noting of PW.3 -"-
Ex.P12(a) Signature of PW.3 -"-
Ex.P13 Reply letter -"-
Ex.P14 Complaint -"-
Ex.P15 Letter dated 3/12/2014 -"-
Ex.P16 Appeal Memo along with -"-
and covering letter
341 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
Ex.P17
Ex.P18 Para-wise comments -"-
Ex.P18(a) Signature of M.Vasudev -"-
Ex.P19 Order copy -"-
Ex.P20 Intimation letter issued to -"-
Prof. Kelu
Ex.P21 Intimation issued to RTEI -"-
Ex.P22 Minutes of the meeting -"-
Ex.P23 -"-
and Letters
Ex.P24
Ex.P25 Letter dated 20/9/2005 -"-
Ex.P26 Copy of the FIR -"-
Ex.P27 Letter dated 20/2/2006 -"-
Ex.P27(a) Signature of PW.36 PW.36
Ex.P28 Reply letter PW.3
Ex.P28(a) Signature of PW.36 PW.36
Ex.P28(b) Reply dated 28/2/2006. PW.36 Ex.P29 Entire File -D3 PW.3 Ex.P29(a) PW.6 Attested copy of Marks cards to and Certificate.
Ex.P29(d) Ex.P29(e) Attested copy of the Marks PW.7 cards, Service certificate and Degree certificate.
Ex.P29(f) Attested copies of the Marks PW.8 cards, Experience Certificate and Degree certificate.
Ex.P29(a-i) Signature of PW.8 on -"-
to Ex.P29(a) to (f).
Ex.P29(f-i)
342 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
Ex.P29(g) The photostat attested -"-
Marks cards, Service
certificate and Degree
Certificate.
Ex.P29(g-i) Signature of PW.8 -"-
Ex.P30 Reply to notice PW.3
Ex.P31 Minutes of the Meeting. -"-
Ex.P31(a) Signature of Chairman Sri -"-
Venkataramaiah.
Ex.P32 Attested copy of the Minutes -"-
of meeting.
Ex.P32(a) Signature of B.Krishnareddy. -"-
Ex.P33 Office copy of the intimation. -"-
Ex.P34 Letter dated 19/10/2005 -"-
Ex.P35 Notes -"-
Ex.P35(a) Concerned note. -"-
Ex.P35(b) Signature of PW.3 -"-
Ex.P35(c) Page No.21 of Ex.P35. PW.36 Ex.P36 Minutes of the meeting PW.3 (No.112).
Ex.P36(a) Signature of Dr.G. -"-
Ponnuswamy.
Ex.P36(b) Ex.P123 was placed before PW.36
the Regional Committee and
same was considered in a
112th meeting of SRC held on
12th and 13th of 2006 at item
no. 49.
Ex.P37 Minutes of the meeting PW.3
No.113
Ex.P37(a) Signature of Dr.G. Ponnuswamy. -"-
Ex.P37(b) 113th meeting of SRC held on PW.36
343 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
6th and 7th July 2006 at
Item No. 19 which is a part
and parcel of Ex.P37.
Ex.P38 Office copy of the letter sent PW.3
to NCTE.
Ex.P39 Reply letter -"-
Ex.P40 Minutes of meeting No.116. -"- Ex.P40(a) Signature of Chairman of -"-
SRC.
Ex.P40(b) 116th meeting of SRC held on PW.36 22nd and 23rd August 2006, Item No.78.
Ex.P41 Office copy of the intimation PW.3 letter.
Ex.P42 Letter from NCTE PW.4
Ex.P43 -"-
and Two Pamphlets
Ex.P44
Ex.P43(a) Note on Ex.P43. -"-
Ex.P45 Report submitted to NCTE -"-
Ex.P45(a) Signature of PW.4 -"-
Ex.P45(b) Signature of PW.38 PW.38
Ex.P46 Staff Attendance Register for PW.5
the period 2005-06.
Ex.P46(a) Relevant portion in the -"-
month of January 2006 at
Sl.No.4.
Ex.P46(b) Relevant portion of PW.6
Attendance Register
Sl.No.10 at Page No.3.
Ex.P46(c) Signature in the Attendance PW.7
Register, Sl.No.7 at page
344 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
no.3.
Ex.P46(d) Signature in the Attendance PW.8
Register, Sl.No.3 at page
no.3.
Ex.P47 Staff Attendance Register for -"-
the period 2006-07.
Ex.P47(a) Relevant portion in the -"-
month of April 2007 at
Sl.No.3.
Ex.P47(b) Relevant portion - signature PW.6
in the Attendance Register at
Sl.No.9 at page no.3.
Ex.P47(c) Signature in the Attendance PW.7
Register, Sl.No.6 at page
no.3 - relevant portion.
Ex.P47(d) Signature in the Attendance PW.8
Register, sl.no.2 at page no.3
- relevant portion.
Ex.P48 Staff Attendance Register for -"-
the period 2008-09.
Ex.P48(a) Relevant portion in the -"-
month of September 2008.
Ex.P48(b) The relevant portion - PW.6
signature in the Attendance
Register, Sl.No.9 at page
no.2.
Ex.P48(c) The relevant portion - PW.7
Signature in the Attendance
Register, Sl.No.6 at page
no.2.
Ex.P48(d) Relevant portion - Signature -"-
in the Attendance Register,
Sl.No.2 at page no.2.
Ex.P49 Salary extracts of RTTI for PW.5
345 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
to the year 2006 to 2008
Ex.P51
Ex.P52 Attendance Register of Dr. -"-
Radhakrishna Teacher's
Educational Institution.
Ex.P52(a) Signature and initial of Sri PW.26 to Theerthegowda. [Marked Ex.P52(e) through PW.26] Ex.P53 Provisional Appointment PW.5 Statement in Dr.RTEI.
Ex.P53(a) The relevant portion of -"-
Ex.P53.
Ex.P54 Receipt Memo dated PW.8
24/4/2009.
Ex.P54(a) Signature of PW.8 -"-
Ex.P55 Seizure Memo dated PW.9
12/3/2009
Ex.P55(a) Signature of PW.9 -"-
Ex.P56 Office note -"-
Ex.P56(a) Signature of PW.9 -"-
Ex.P57 Eligibility Certificate -"-
Ex.P57(a) Signature of the Director - -"-
Jagannath Rao.
Ex.P58 Letter to DSERT by Dr. -"-
RTEI.
Ex.P59 Receipt Memo dated PW.11
6/5/2009
Ex.P59(a) Signature of PW.11 -"-
Ex.P60 Application and its -"-
enclosures submitted by Dr.
RTEI.
Ex.P61 Receipt Memo dated -"-
346 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
10/6/2009.
Ex.P61(a) Signature of PW.11. -"-
Ex.P62 Receipt Memo dated PW.15
12/03/2009
Ex.P62(a) Signature of PW.15 -"-
Ex.P63 Document D-54 - entire file. -"-
Ex.P64 Registration Certificate of Sri PW.16
Karagadamma Chits and
Finance Pvt. Ltd.,
Ex.P65 Attested copy of Registration PW.17
Certificate.
Ex.P65(a) Signature of PW.17 -"-
Ex.P66 True copy of the first copy of -"-
the charge sheet.
Ex.P66(a) Signature of PW.24 on PW.24
to Ex.P66 to Ex.P69.
Ex.P69(a)
Ex.P67 -"-
to Three FDRs
Ex.P69
Ex.P70 Register PW.21
Ex.P70(a) Relevant portion PW.21
Ex.P70(b) Relevant portion at Page PW.25
No.4. -(PW.25)
Ex.P70(c) Entry of PW.32 in the PW.32
Admission Register at
Sl.No.31.
Ex.P70(d) Admission Register in which PW.28 particulars as well as photo of PW.28 is appearing.
Ex.P71 Receipt Memo PW.23 Ex.P71(a) Signature of PW.23 -"- 347 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Ex.P72 Certified copy of the -"- Register. Ex.P72(a) Signature of PW.23 -"- Ex.P72(b) Relevant portion -"- Ex.P73 D.30 - two receipts. PW.25 Ex.P74 Seizure Memo -"- Ex.P74(a) Signature of PW.25. -"- Ex.P75 Register PW.26 Ex.P75(a) Signature of PW.31 on PW.31 Ex.P75 Ex.P76 The photographs at PW.26 Document D.15(1), D.15(2), D.15(4) and D.15(5). Ex.P76(a) Document No.D53 PW.31 Ex.P76(b) Signature of PW.31 -"- appearing on all the photographs. Ex.P77 Seizure Memo PW.26 Ex.P77(a) Signature of PW.26 -"- Ex.P78 Seizure Memo PW.27 Ex.P78(a) Signature of PW.27 -"- Ex.P79 Seizure Memo dated -"- 10/2/2009 Ex.P79(a) Signature of PW.27 -"- Ex.P80 Receipt dated 8/12/2007 -"- Ex.P80(a) Signature of Theerthegowda -"- on the back side of the receipt. Ex.P81 Seizure Memo PW.28 Ex.P81(a) Signature of the father of -"- PW.28 348 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Ex.P82 Xerox copy of DD submitted -"- by PW.28 to the Institution. Ex.P83 Seizure Memo PW.29 Ex.P83(a) Signature of PW.29 -"- Ex.P84 -"- to Receipts given by Jayaram Ex.P99 Ex.P100 Fixed Deposit receipt of PW.30 Indian Bank, Ulsoor Branch, bearing TDR No.0189747 for Rs.15 lakhs dated 20/9/2007 and questioned signatures marked as Q.5 to Q6. Ex.P101 Demand Promissory Note -"- dated 78/4/2016 for Rs.13.50 lakhs, and the questioned signatures are assigned as Q7 and Q8. Ex.P102 FD receipt of Indian Bank, -"- Ulsoor Branch bearing TDR No.0189746 for Rs.9 lakhs dated 20/9/2007, the question signatures are assigned as Q9. Ex.P103 Demand Promissory Note -"- dated 3/5/2006 for Rs.8 lakhs, the questioned signatures are assigned as Q10 and Q11. Ex.P104 Two receipts dated -"- and 2/3/2008 and 9/11/2008, Ex.P105 the questioned signatures are assigned as Q15 and Q16. 349 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
Ex.P104(a) Signature of Theerthegowda PW.32 and appearing on Ex.P104 and Ex.P105(a) Ex.P105.
Ex.P106 Specimen writing and PW.30 signatures of accused no.2 which is in 12 sheets.
Ex.P106(a) Signature of PW.31 PW.31 appearing on all 12 sheets.
Ex.P107 Letter addressed by office of PW.30
to the Government Examiner of
Ex.P110 questioned documents,
Hyderabad dated
17/1/2009, case abstract,
opinion of the report dated
2/6/2009 which bears
signature of PW.30 and also
one Mr. P. Venugopalarao.
Ex.P109(a) Signature of PW.30 -"-
appearing on Ex.109.
Ex.P109(b) Signature of P.Venugopalrao -"-
appearing on Ex.P109.
Ex.P110(a) Signature of PW.30 found on -"-
Ex.P110.
Ex.P111 PW.31
and Search list and proceedings
Ex.P112
Ex.P111(a) -"-
Ex.P111(b) Signature of PW.31
Ex.P112(a)
Ex.P112(b) Signature of Mr. M.Raja. PW.46
Ex.P111(c) Signature of accused no.2 PW.31 appearing on Ex.P111.
Ex.P113 Document consisting of Page -"-
No.1 to 80
350 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
Ex.P113(a) Signature of PW.31 -"-
Ex.P114 Seizure Memo PW.32
Ex.P114(a) Signature of PW.32 -"-
Ex.P115 Mahazar dated 28/6/2008 PW.33
Ex.P115(a) Signature of PW.33 -"-
Ex.P115(c) Signature of PW.43 PW.43
Ex.P115(d) Signature of PW.45 PW.45
Ex.P116 Assessment Proforma for PW.33
inspection.
Ex.P116(a) Signature of PW.33 PW.33
Ex.P115(b) Signature of PW.34 on PW.34
and Ex.P115 and Ex.P116.
Ex.P116(b)
Ex.P117 Receipt Memo PW.33
Ex.P117(a) Signature of PW.33 -"-
Ex.P118 Proceedings dated -"-
14/10/2009
Ex.P118(a) Signature of PW.33 -"-
Ex.P118(a)(i) Signature of PW.43 PW.43
Ex.P118(b) Photographs taken from PW.33
to DVD-R
Ex.P118(g)
Ex.P118(b)(i) PW.43
to Signature of PW.43.
Ex.P118(g)(i)
Ex.P118(h) Signature of PW.34 on PW.34
Ex.P118
Ex.P119 Sealed cover PW.33
Ex.P119(a) Signature of PW.34 on PW.34
Ex.P119
Ex.P119(b) Signature of PW.43. PW.43 351 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 Ex.P120 DVD PW.33 Ex.P120(a) Signature of PW.34 on PW.34 Ex.P120.
Ex.P120(a)(i) Signature of PW.43 PW.43
Ex.P121 Certificate under Section 65- PW.33
B of Indian Evidence Act,
1872
Ex.P121(a) Signature of PW.33 -"-
Ex.P122 Letter dated 28/1/2016 PW.36
Ex.P123 The order of Appellate -"-
Authority, NCTE, dated
12/6/2006.
Ex.P123(a) Signature of PW.36 -"-
Ex.P124 The shortcomings found in -"-
Radhakrishna Educational
Institution dated 4/7/2012
which is a part of Ex.P7.
Ex.P125 File of Radhakrishna PW.37
Teachers Educational
Institute, Bengaluru.
Ex.P125(a) Note found at Para No.4 -"-
Ex.P125(b) Signature of PW.37 -"-
Ex.P125(c) -"-
and The note found at Page
Ex.P125(d) No.13 and 14.
Ex.P125(e) Draft Agenda for approval on PW.38 31/10/2005 at note sheet page No.1.
Ex.P125(f) Signature of PW.38 -"-
Ex.P125(g) Report of Sub Committee of -"-
the appeal committee on
17/11/2005 which is found
at page no.3 of note sheet of
352 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
Ex.P125.
Ex.P125(h) Signature of PW.38 -"-
Ex.P125(i) -"-
and Note in Ex.P125 at Page
Ex.P125(j) No.3.
Ex.P125(k) Note sheet page No.4 of -"-
Ex.P125 dated 21/3/2006.
Ex.P125(l) Para No.2 and 3 found at -"-
Ex.P125(k).
Ex.P125(m) The office note dated PW.39
11/11/2005.
Ex.P125(m) Signature of accused no.1 -"-
(i)
Ex.P125(m)(ii) Note in Ex.P125(m) -"-
Ex.P125(n) Letter dated 16/11/2005. -"- Ex.P125(o) Endorsement made by -"-
accused no.1 on the Note marked as Ex.P125(a) as per Ex.P125(j).
Ex.P125(p) Note put up on 21/3/2006 -"-
in respect of Dr. RTEI.
Ex.P125(p)(i) Signature of PW.39 -"- Ex.P125(q) Note put up by accused no.1 -"-
on 5/6/2006 which is a part of Ex.P125.
Ex.P125(r) Note in Page No.5 of -"-
Ex.P125.
Ex.P125(r) (i) Signature of PW.39 -"-
Ex.P125(s) Notice dated 4/6/2006 -"-
found at page No. 87 to 92
(written in pen).
Ex.P125(t) Note made by accused no.1 -"-
353 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
on 9/6/2006 which is part
of Ex.P125.
Ex.P125(u) Report accompanied to the -"-
note from pages 111 to 129.
Ex.P125(v) Note dated 9/6/2006 -"-
Ex.P125(u).
Ex.P125(v) (i) Signature of PW.39 -"-
Ex.P125(w) Note put up by accused no.1 -"-
on 9/6/2006 found at page
no.7 which bears his
signature.
Ex.P125(x) Approval order dated -"-
12/6/2006.
Ex.P125(y) 3 orders issued in respect of -"-
Dr. RTEI dated 12/6/2006.
Ex.P126 File of Dr. Radhakrishna PW.38
Teachers Educational
Institute, Bengaluru.
Ex.P126(a) Page No. 1 to 3 of note sheet -"-
pertaining to the appeal preferred by Dr. RTEI, Bengaluru containing page No.1 to 3.
Ex.P126(b) Signature of PW.38 -"-
Ex.P126(c) Page No. 4 and 5 of note -"-
sheet.
Ex.P126(d) The signature of Vice Chair -"-
Person of NCTE with the
above said note found at
Page no.5 dated 4/2/2005.
Ex.P126(e) Letter sent to RDSRC. -"-
Ex.P126(f) Note put up on Page No.7 of -"-
note sheet.
354 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
Ex.P126(g) Note found in Page No.8 of -"-
Ex.P126 on 3/3/2005
Ex.P127 File pertaining to 7th appeal -"-
committee meeting bearing
file no.91-1/2005 appeal.
Ex.P127(a) Note with regard to 7th -"-
appeal committee meeting
on 26/5/2005 found at
Ex.P5 of Ex.P127.
Ex.P127(b) Signature of PW.38 found -"-
below the said note -
Ex.P127(a)
Ex.P127(i) The minutes of the meeting PW.39 of the appeal committee of NCTE held on 7/11/2005 to 9/11/2005 signed by accused no.1 from page No.84 to 124.
Ex.P127(j) Signature of PW.39 on -"-
Ex.P127 Ex.P127(k) Note dated 10/2/2006. -"- Ex.P127(k)(i) Signature of PW.39 -"- Ex.P127(m) Page No.29 of note sheet put -"-
up dated 9/5/2006.
Ex.P127(m) Signature of PW.39. -"-
(i) Ex.P127(n) Signature of PW.40 on PW.40 Ex.P127.
Ex.P128 File No.91-2/2005-Appeal PW.38 meeting pertaining to 8th Appeal Committee meeting.
Ex.P128(a) Note dated 29/11/2005 for -"-
consideration of appeal in 8th Appeal Committee meeting.
355 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
Ex.P128(b) Signature of PW.38 -"-
Ex.P128(c) Note to hold meeting on 13th -"-
and 14th December 2005 found at page no.2 of Ex.P128.
Ex.P128(d) Note found in Sl.No.3 at -"-
Ex.128(c) Ex.P128(e) Minutes of the meeting PW.39 contained in Page No.48 to 70 (written in Ink pen) which is part of Ex.P128.
Ex.P128(e-i) Signature of accused no.1 -"-
Ex.P128(f) Notes put up on -"-
14/12/2005 found at page No.4 of Ex.P128 in F.N.91- 2/2005/NCTE/Appeal.
Ex.P128(f)(i) Signature of PW.39. -"- Ex.P128(g) Note put up on 3/1/2006. -"- Ex.P128(g)(i) Signature of PW.39 -"-
Ex.P128(h) Note put up by Vice -"-
Chairperson on 4/1/2006.
Ex.P128(i) Note put up by PW.39 on -"-
6/1/2006.
Ex.P128(i)(1) Signature of PW.39 -"-
Ex.P128(j) Observations. -"-
Ex.P128(k) Note of the Vice -"-
Chairperson.
Ex.P128(l) Minutes of the meeting - -"-
Pages from 71 to 77 written
in ink.
Ex.P128(m) Note put up by PW.39 on -"-
20/1/2006 which is part of
Ex.P128.
356 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
Ex.P128(m) Signature of PW.39 -"-
(i)
Ex.P128(n) Note put up by Member -"-
Secretary, NCTE.
Ex.P128(o) Note at Page no.9 of note -"-
sheet found at Ex.P128.
Ex.P128(o)(i) Signature of PW.39 -"-
Ex.P129 Receipt Memo dated -"-
6/4/2009.
Ex.P129(a) Signature of PW.39. -"-
Ex.P130 FIR along with covering PW.46 letter consisting of 16 pages.
Ex.P130(a) Signature of Mr. Narasimha -"-
Kumar appearing on the FIR at page No.16.
Ex.P131 Search List conducted at the -"-
residential address of
accused no.2.
Ex.P131(a) Signature of PW.46 -"-
Ex.P132 Seizure Memo -"-
Ex.P132(a) Signature of PW.46 -"-
Ex.P133 -"-
and Two petitions
Ex.P134
Ex.P133(a) -"-
and Signature of PW.46
Ex.P134(a)
Ex.P135 Two letters from the -"-
and Manager of Indian Bank,
Ex.P136 Ulsoor Branch.
Ex.P137 Gazette Notification along -"-
with annexures upto Page
No.84.
357 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
Ex.P138 NCTE Act, Rules and -"-
regulations in compendium
consisting of Page No.1 to
165.
Ex.P139 Charge sheet -"-
Ex.P139(a) Signature of PW.46 -"-
CHART FOR WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:
Defence Name of Witness Description Witness No. 1 Theerthegowda CHART FOR EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS ON DEFENCE SIDE:
Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved No. by/ Attested by Ex.D1 Document dated 14/11/2005. PW.36 Ex.D2 Letter dated 17/2/2006 -"- Ex.D3 Deposition in Cr.No.86/2005. -"-
Ex.D4 Letter dated 5/6/2006 PW.44
Ex.D5 -"-
and Orders dated 12/6/2006
Ex.D6
Ex.D7 Certified copy of the Judgment PW.46
in CC No.9283/2006 dated
25/2/2021.
Ex.D8 Resolution dated 2/3/2001 DW.1
358 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
Ex.D8(a) Xerox copy of list of Executive -"-
Members of Dr.RTEI.
Ex.D8(b) Xerox copy of Certificate of -"-
Registration dated
15/07/1985.
Ex.D9 5 Photos and one CD. -"-
SATISH Digitally signed by
SATISH BALI
BALI Date: 2025.12.23
17:20:42 +0530
(SATISH J. BALI)
XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge and Special Judge for CBI
Cases, Bengalulru.
359 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
.....ORDER pronounced in the
Open Court (Vide Separate detailed Judgment..) ORDER Acting under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C, the Accused No.1, 3 to 5 are convicted for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also for the offences punishable under Section 417 r/w Section 120-B of IPC.
Acting under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C., Accused No.2 is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471 r/w Section 120-B of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by the accused persons and their sureties are hereby discharged.
(SATISH J. BALI) XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengalulru.360 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
.....ORDER ON SENTENCE pronounced in the Open Court (Vide Separate detailed Judgment..) ORDER The Accused No.1, 3 to 5 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of THREE years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- [Rupees Two Lakhs only] each, and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX months each for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Accused No.1, 3 to 5 are also sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of ONE year each, and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only] each for the offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC, and in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of THREE months.361 Spl.CC.No.234/2009
The Accused No.1, 3 to 5 are also sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX months each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand only] each for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC, and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of TWO months.
The Accused No.2 shall undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of FIVE years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- [Rupees Three Lakhs only] for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX months.
The Accused No.2 shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of FIVE years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- [Rupees Three Lakhs only] for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX months.
The Accused No.2 shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of TWO 362 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh only] for the offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of THREE months.
The Accused No.2 is also sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand only] for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC, and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of TWO months.
All the above said sentences shall run concurrently.
The accused No.1 to 5 are entitled for set off in respect of the period for which they have already undergone during the trial.
Office is directed to furnish free copy of the Judgment to the accused no.1 to 5 forthwith.
(SATISH J. BALI) XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengalulru.363 Spl.CC.No.234/2009 364 Spl.CC.No.234/2009