Bangalore District Court
Cbi/Acb/Bengaluru vs A1. Sree Sarada Educational Rural ... on 18 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
-: Present :-
Smt. L.J. Bhavani, B.A., LL.M.,
XVII Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate,
(Spl. Court for CBI Cases) Bengaluru.
C.C.No.17622/2017
Dated 18th Day of May, 2026
COMPLAINANT :
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Anti Corruption Branch,
Bengaluru.
[By learned Sr. P.P.]
// Versus //
ACCUSED :
1. Sree Sarada Educational, Rural
Development and Animal
Welfare Society, Akuledu,
Anananthapura District.
Society registered with the
Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Anananthapura
District. Government of Andhra
Pradesh.
Represented by its Secretary
Sri. S. Seshadri Reddy (Accused
No.2).
2. Sri. S. Seshadri Reddy,
S/o Late Rajasekhar Reddy,
Major, Correspondent, Sree
Sarada Education (D.EI.Ed. &
B.Ed.) College, Akuledu,
Ananthapura. Andhra Pradesh.
2 C.C.No.17622/2017
R/o 4th Road, Near Nethaji
Government High School,
Ananthapura - 515 001.
3. Sri. K. Obulapathy,
S/o Late K. Obulesu, Major,
Secondary Grade Teacher, MPP
Government School,
Government of Andhra Pradesh
Kotanka, Ananthapura District.
Andhra Pradesh.
R/o No.3/10/6, Tapovanam,
Ananthapura District.
(Sri.K.R.V. Advocate for
accused No.1 and 2).
(Sri.S.V.V. Advocate for
accused No.3).
JUDGMENT
The charge sheet submitted by the Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Bengaluru against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 120 B r/w 420, 468, 471 and 473 of IPC and the substantive offences thereof.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is as under :
On 21.05.2007, Sree Sarada Education, Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society i.e. accused No.1 was registered with the District Registrar of Assurances, Ananthapur, under the Societies Registration Act vide No.35/2001 and on 20.09.2010 Sri S. Seshadri Reddy i.e. accused No.2 became the 3 C.C.No.17622/2017 secretary of accused No.1 society. The accused No.2 has been running a school named Sri. Sarada Vidyaniketan English Medium School at Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu Village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh for classes 1 to 7 from the academic year 2010-11. This school has 3 building structures namely (i) G+1 structure situated opposite to the Main Gate along west side, (ii) Ground floor and first floor (first floor with only outer walls without roof) along south side and (iii) A temporary shed with asbestos-sheet-roofing. It has a total built up area of 272.18 square meter (2,930 square feet), including the temporary shed of 62.37 square meter (671 square feet) and a total land area of 1,119.30 square meter (12,048 square feet).
3. Further, on 27.02.2015, the National Council for Teacher Education issued a public notice inviting applications for starting new education colleges/increase in intake of students. The NCTE Regulations, 2014 under which the applications were processed, specified the norms and standards for infrastructural facilities and as per Clause 6.1 (ii) of Appendix-4, the built-up area and the land area required for running D.El.Ed. Plus B.Ed., Course is 3,000 square meter and the required documents has to be submitted for grant of formal recognition as per NCTE Regulations 2014.
4 C.C.No.17622/20174. It is alleged that accused No.1 represented by accused No.2 and 3 entered into a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of conspiracy, schemed to get formal recognition for running D.El.Ed., and B.Ed., Courses in the name of Sree Sarada Education (D.El.Ed. and B.Ed.) College, Akuledu, Ananthapur District under the aegis of accused No.1 society with the available infrastructure of Sri. Sarada Vidyaniketan School and without having the infrastructure required for running the said composite course as specified in the NCTE Regulations, 2014. In pursuance of criminal conspiracy, on 22.05.2015 accused No.2 and accused No.3 have re-constituted the Executive Committee of accused No.1 Society and elected Smt. K. Lakshmi Devi who is wife of accused No.3 as the treasurer of the accused No.1 Society. The accused persons also changed the address of the accused No.1 society from Kandlapalli village to Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu Village, Ananthapur District and on 26.05.2015, they got the property at Sy.No.241/2 Akuledu village, transferred from the name of accused No.2 to the name of accused No.1 Society.
5. Further it is alleged that in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, accused No.2 and 3 have obtained NOC dated 25.05.2015 from State Council for Educational Research and Training (SCERT), Hyderabad for D.El.Ed. Course and NOC dated 29.05.2015 from Sri. 5 C.C.No.17622/2017 Krishnadevaraya University, Ananthapur District for B.Ed. Course. During this period, accused No.3 also approached Sri. B. Thirupalu, Engineer and Proprietor, M/s Apex Constructions, Ananthapur district and obtained a building plan in the name of Sree Sarada Education D.El.Ed. and B.Ed. College at Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu Village, Ananthapur district showing ground floor plus three floors, whereas the available buildings at this survey number had only ground floor plus first floor. Further accused No.3 and 2 arranged funds and obtained demand drafts dated 29.05.2015 and 03.06.2015 respectively towards processing fee for the D.El.Ed. and B.Ed. Courses applications.
6. It is further alleged that in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, accused No.2 and 3 submitted the online applications in the name of accused No.1 Society for obtaining formal recognition for D.El.Ed. and B.Ed. Courses on 29.05.2015 and 05.06.2015 respectively. Accused No.2 and 3 with dishonest and fraudulent intention and with the intention to cheat the NCTE and to obtain the formal recognition, furnished the details of the building in the applications as having multipurpose hall, seminar room, library, arts and crafts room etc. though such rooms were not available and they further submitted the hard copy of the applications to the NCTE on 18.06.2015. Based on the infrastructural and the 6 C.C.No.17622/2017 instructional details furnished by accused No.2 and 3 in the applications, the NCTE processed the applications and deputed the visiting team to conduct inspection of Sree Sarada Education D.El.Ed. and B.Ed College and the visiting team conducted the inspection of the college on 11.02.2016.
7. It is further alleged that in pursuance of criminal conspiracy and in order to cheat the NCTE, accused No.3 and 2 forged and created Land Conversion Proceedings dated 15.11.2015 and the Building Completion Certificate dated 25.08.2015 to falsely show that the agricultural land at Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu village can be used for running institution and that sufficient buildings were available at this land to run the college. They forged the above certificates to show as if the same were issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur District and the Mandal Engineering Officer, Singanamal Mandal, Ananthapur District and for this purpose, on the instruction of accused No.3, accused No.2 got the seal i.e. rubber stamp in the name of Mandal Engineering Officer, Singanamal Mandal, made and affixed the same on the building completion certificate, thereby making or possessing counterfeit seal with intent to commit forgery. The accused No.2 and 3 then submitted these documents to the visiting team, thus, used such forged documents as genuine. The 7 C.C.No.17622/2017 accused No.2 and 3 also intentionally misrepresented the facts by showing that multipurpose hall with seating capacity of 200 persons and a dais with a total area of 2,234.50 square feet, a Library cum resource center with an area of 1,580.50 square feet and ICT resource center of 2,234.50 square feet etc., are available, whereas the entire buildings consisting of total 8 rooms, apart from the office cum correspondent room. The forged building plan showed a total built up area of 27,536.95 square feet (2,558.26 square meter), whereas the actual available buildings measured only a total built up area of 272.18 square meter (2,930 square feet), including the temporary shed of 62.37 square meter (671 square feet).
8. Further, based on the documents namely the building plan and the building completion certificate submitted by accused No.2 to the visiting team, the Southern Regional Committee of the NCTE in its meeting held on 15.02.2016, decided that show cause notice be issued to accused No.1 for the reasons that the built up area was not adequate for 2 programs, the building plan was not approved by the competent authority and the CD video-graphed during inspection, showed asbestos roof building.
9. Further, it is alleged that with the fraudulent and dishonest intention of circumventing the deficiencies pointed out by the SRC/NCTE and in pursuance of 8 C.C.No.17622/2017 criminal conspiracy to somehow obtain the formal recognition, accused No.3 obtained another false building plan from Sri. B. Thirupalu, Engineer and Proprietor, M/s Apex Constructions, Ananthapur District showing a total built up area of 3,281 square meter (35,324.87 square feet), whereas the actual buildings had a total built-up area of 272.18 square meter (2,930 square feet), including the temporary shed of 62.37 square meter (671 square feet), which is grossly inadequate in terms of the NCTE Regulations, 2014. In order to falsely show that the building plan was issued by the competent authority, on the instructions of accused No.3, accused No.2 got the seal i.e. rubber stamp, made in the name of Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayat, Singanamal Mandal and affixed the same on the building plan, thereby making or possessing counterfeit seal with intent to commit forgery. By this act, accused No.2 and 3 also committed forgery of these documents and then used such forged documents as genuine. Thereafter, accused No.2 and 3 submitted the forged building plan to the NCTE by a letter dated 17.02.2016 and made the SRC, NCTE to believe that the required built up area was available and thereby fraudulently and dishonestly induced the SRC, NCTE to issue the Letter of Intent dated 20.02.2016 and NCTE issued the Letter of Intent subject to the submission of proof of removal of the asbestos sheets 9 C.C.No.17622/2017 and duly certified by the Engineer approving the building completion certificate and submission of the fixed deposit receipts in the joint name of the institution and the Regional Director, NCTE towards the endowment fund and the reserve fund of Rs.5.00 lakhs and Rs.7.00 lakhs respectively per program for a period of 5 years. But accused No.2 and 3 in pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, did not remove the asbestos sheets from the building and did not produce the FDRs towards the endowment fund and the reserve fund, but falsely induced the NCTE and fraudulently obtained the formal recognition orders for the D.El.Ed. and the B.Ed courses, on the last date fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India i.e. 02.05.2016.
10. Further, it is alleged that after obtaining the formal recognition order, accused No.2 admitted 30 students in the D.El.Ed. Course in the college during the academic year 2016-17, through the Convener, DEECET Government of Andhra Pradesh and allotted 4 students under the management quota. Accused No.2 also received an amount of Rs.1.22 lakhs from the Convener, DEECET, Guntur, in the account No.10873694841 of the institution maintained in SBI, Sai Nagar Branch, Ananthapur towards fees for the 30 candidates. Thus the above said acts of the accused No.1 to 3 constitute offences punishable u/Sec.120 B r/w 420, 468, 471 and 10 C.C.No.17622/2017 473 of IPC and the substantive offences thereof. The criminal acts of accused No.3 were committed by him outside of the purview of the discharge of his official duty and therefore, no sanction for his prosecution is required. Hence, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 120 B r/w 420, 468, 471 and 473 of IPC and the substantive offences thereof.
11. After receipt of Charge Sheet, this Court took the cognizance of the offences punishable u/Sec. 120 B r/w 420, 468, 471 and 473 of IPC and the substantive offences thereof against the accused persons and summons issued to the accused No.1 to 3 and they were appeared before the Court and enlarged on bail. The charge sheet copies were furnished to them as required u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
12. Heard both sides on framing of charge. Since there were prima-facie materials available on record, charge was framed and it was read over to the accused persons, they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
13. In order to prove the case, prosecution has examined 36 witnesses as PW.1 to 36 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to 114 and closed its side evidence.
11 C.C.No.17622/201714. The incriminating evidence prevailing against the accused No.1 to 3, the statement U/sec.313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded and read over to the accused No.1 to 3. The accused No.1 to 3 denied the same as false and they have not chosen to adduce any evidence on their behalf.
15. I have heard the arguments of the Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor and Ld. Counsels for accused No.1 to
3. The Ld. Counsel for accused No.3 files memorandum of arguments u/Sec.314 of Cr.P.C. I have perused the materials available on record.
16. On the materials available on record and also on the arguments advanced by both the parties, the points that arose for my consideration are as under;
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, the accused No.1 to 3 entered into criminal conspiracy during the year 2015-16 and in pursuant of such conspiracy, fraudulently and dishonestly reconstituted the executive committee of accused No.1 Society on 22.05.2015 and changed the address of accused No.1 Society from Kandlapalli Village to Sy.No.241/2 Akuledu Village, Ananthapura District and got the property at Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu Village transferred from the name of accused No.2 to the name of accused No.1 Society on 26.05.2015 and obtained NOC dated 25.05.2015 from 12 C.C.No.17622/2017 the SCERT, Hyderabad for D.El.Ed.
Course and NOC dated 29.05.2015 from Sri. Krishnadevaraya University, Ananthapura District for B.Ed. Course and accused No.3 approached C.W.11 and obtained building plan in the name of Sree Sarada Education (D.El.Ed. and B.Ed.) College at Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu Village, Ananthapura District showing Ground Floor Plus three floors, whereas the available building only ground floor plus first floor and accused No.3 and 2 arranged funds and obtained Demand Drafts dated 29.05.2015 and 03.06.2015 respectively towards processing fees and submitted online applications in the name of accused No.1 Society for obtaining formal recognition for D.El.Ed. and B.Ed. Course on 29.05.2015 and 05.06.2015 respectively with fraudulent intention to cheat the NCTE and obtained the formal recognition by furnishing details of building in the applications as having multipurpose hall, seminar room, library, arts and crafts room etc. though such rooms were not available and further submitted the hard copy of the said application to NCTE on 18.06.2015 and the accused No.2 and 3 had forged and created Land Conversion Proceedings dated 15.11.2015 of Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapura District and Building Completion Certificate dated 25.08.2015 of Mandal Engineering Officer, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapura District and for the purpose of forgery, on the instruction of accused No.3, the accused No.2 got the seal i.e. rubber stamp in the name of 13 C.C.No.17622/2017 Mandal Engineering Officer, Singanamala Mandal made and affixed the same on the Building Completion Certificate and submitted these documents to visiting team as genuine documents and accused No.2 and 3 intentionally misrepresented the facts in respect built up area of 2,558.26 Square meter whereas actual available built up area is 272.18 square meter including temporary shed and after issuance of show cause notice by SRC, the accused No.3 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy obtained another false building plan from C.W.11 showing total built up area of 3,281 square meter, whereas actual building had a total built up area of 272.18 square meter including the temporary shed and the accused No.2 on the instruction of accused No.3, got the seal i.e. rubber stamp made in the name of Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayat, Singanamala (Mdl) and affixed the same on the building plan and thereby making or processing counterfeit seal with intent to commit forgery and submitted the forged building plan to NCTE by a letter dated 17.02.2016 and made the SRC, NCTE to believe that the required built up area was available and thereby fraudulently and dishonestly induced the SRC, NCTE to issue the Letters of Intent dated 20.02.2016 and also fraudulently obtained formal recognition order dated 02.05.2016 for D.El.Ed. and B.Ed.
Courses without producing fixed deposit receipts and without removing asbestos sheets from the building and thereafter, accused No.2 admitted 30 students in 14 C.C.No.17622/2017 D.El.Ed. course in the college during the academic year 2016-17 and received Rs.1,22,000/- from Convener, DEECET, Guntur in the SBI bank account of institution towards fees for the 30 students and thereby committed the offence punishable u/Sec.120 B r/w Sec.420, 468, 471 and 473 of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said period, the accused No.1 to 3 in pursuant of criminal conspiracy hatched among them, fraudulently and dishonestly reconstituted the executive committee of accused No.1 Society on 22.05.2015 and changed the address of accused No.1 Society from Kandlapalli Village to Sy.No.241/2 Akuledu Village, Ananthapura District and got the property at Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu Village transferred from the name of accused No.2 to the name of accused No.1 Society on 26.05.2015 and obtained NOC dated 25.05.2015 from the SCERT, Hyderabad for D.El.Ed.
Course and NOC dated 29.05.2015 from Sri. Krishnadevaraya University, Ananthapura District for B.Ed. Course and accused No.3 approached C.W.11 and obtained building plan in the name of Sree Sarada Education (D.El.Ed. and B.Ed.) College at Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu Village, Ananthapura District showing Ground Floor Plus three floors, whereas the available building only ground floor plus first floor and accused No.3 and 2 arranged funds and obtained Demand Drafts dated 29.05.2015 and 03.06.2015 respectively towards processing fees and 15 C.C.No.17622/2017 submitted online applications in the name of accused No.1 Society for obtaining formal recognition for D.El.Ed. and B.Ed. Course on 29.05.2015 and 05.06.2015 respectively with fraudulent intention to cheat the NCTE and obtained the formal recognition by furnishing details of building in the applications as having multipurpose hall, seminar room, library, arts and crafts room etc. though such rooms were not available and further submitted the hard copy of the said application to NCTE on 18.06.2015 and the accused No.2 and 3 had submitted forged and created Land Conversion Proceedings dated 15.11.2015 of Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapura District and Building Completion Certificate dated 25.08.2015 of Mandal Engineering Officer, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapura District to visiting team as genuine documents and for the purpose of forgery, on the instruction of accused No.3, accused No.2 got the seal in the name of Mandal Engineering Office, Singanamala Mandal, made and affixed the same on the Building Competition Certificate and accused No.2 and 3 intentionally misrepresented the facts in respect built up area of 2,558.26 Square meter whereas actual available built up area is 272.18 square meter including temporary shed and after issuance of show cause notice by SRC, the accused No.3 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy obtained another false building plan from C.W.11 showing total built up area of 3,281 square meter, whereas actual building had a total built up area of 16 C.C.No.17622/2017 272.18 square meter including the temporary shed and the accused No.2 on the instruction of accused No.3, got the seal i.e. rubber stamp made in the name of Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayat, Singanamala (Mdl) and affixed the same on the building plan and submitted the forged building plan to NCTE by a letter dated 17.02.2016 and made the SRC, NCTE to believe that the required built up area was available and thereby fraudulently and dishonestly induced the SRC, NCTE to issue the letters of intent dated 20.02.2016 and also fraudulently obtained formal recognition order dated 02.05.2016 for D.El.Ed. and B.Ed.
Courses without producing fixed deposit receipts and without removing asbestos sheets from the building and thereafter, accused No.2 admitted 30 students in D.El.Ed. course in the college during the academic year 2016-17 and received Rs.1,22,000/- from Convener, DEECET, Guntur in the SBI bank account of the institution towards fees for the 30 students and thereby committed the offence punishable u/Sec.420 of IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, the accused No.1 to 3 in pursuant of criminal conspiracy, accused No.3 fraudulently obtained building plan from C.W.11 in the name of Sree Sarada Education (D.El.Ed. and B.Ed.) College at Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu Village, Ananthapura District showing Ground Floor Plus three floors, whereas the 17 C.C.No.17622/2017 available building only ground floor plus first floor and the accused No.2 and 3 had forged and created Land Conversion Proceedings dated 15.11.2015 of Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapura District and Building Completion Certificate dated 25.08.2015 of Mandal Engineering Officer, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapura District and for the purpose of forgery, on the instruction of accused No.3, the accused No.2 got the seal i.e. rubber stamp in the name of Mandal Engineering Officer, Singanamala Mandal made and affixed the same on the Building Completion Certificate and submitted these documents to visiting team as genuine documents and the accused No.3 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy obtained another false building plan from C.W.11 showing total built up area of 3,281 square meter, whereas actual building had a total built up area of 272.18 square meter including the temporary shed and the accused No.2 on the instruction of accused No.3, got the seal i.e. rubber stamp made in the name of Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayat, Singanamala (Mdl) and affixed the same on the building plan and submitted the forged building plan to NCTE by a letter dated 17.02.2016 and made the SRC, NCTE to believe that the required built up area was available and thereby fraudulently and dishonestly induced the SRC, NCTE to issue the Letter of Intent dated 20.02.2016 and also fraudulently obtained formal recognition order dated 02.05.2016 for D.El.Ed. and B.Ed.
18 C.C.No.17622/2017Courses and used the forged documents for the purpose of cheating and thereby committed the offence punishable u/Sec.468 of IPC ?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, the accused No.1 to 3 in pursuant of criminal conspiracy, accused No.3 dishonestly obtained false building plan from C.W.11 in the name of Sree Sarada Education (D.El.Ed. and B.Ed.) College at Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu Village, Ananthapura District showing Ground Floor Plus three floors, whereas the available building only ground floor plus first floor and the accused No.2 and 3 had forged and created Land Conversion Proceedings dated 15.11.2015 of Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapura District and Building Completion Certificate dated 25.08.2015 of Mandal Engineering Officer, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapura District and for the purpose of forgery, on the instruction of accused No.3, the accused No.2 got the seal i.e. rubber stamp in the name of Mandal Engineering Officer, Singanamala Mandal made and affixed the same on the Building Completion Certificate and submitted these documents to visiting team as genuine documents and the accused No.3 obtained another false building plan from C.W.11 showing total built up area of 3,281 square meter, whereas actual building had a total built up area of 272.18 square meter including the temporary shed and the accused No.2 on the instruction of accused No.3, got the 19 C.C.No.17622/2017 seal i.e. rubber stamp made in the name of Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayat, Singanamala (Mdl) and affixed the same on the building plan and submitted the forged building plan to NCTE by a letter dated 17.02.2016 and dishonestly used the said documents as genuine documents knowingly the said documents are forged documents and thereby committed the offence punishable u/Sec.471 of IPC ?
5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, the accused No.1 to 3 in pursuant of criminal conspiracy, for the purpose of forgery, on the instruction of accused No.3, the accused No.2 got the seal i.e. rubber stamp in the name of Mandal Engineering Officer, Singanamala Mandal made and affixed the same on the Building Completion Certificate dated 25.08.2015 and also got another seal i.e. rubber stamp made in the name of Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayat, Singanamala (Mdl) and affixed the same on the building plan falsely show that the said documents were issued by the competent authority and thereby used the said counterfeit seals with an intention to commit forgery and thereby committed the offence punishable u/Sec.473 of IPC ?
6) What order or sentence?
17. My findings to the above points are as under;
POINT NO.1 : In the Affirmative
POINT NO.2 : In the Affirmative
20 C.C.No.17622/2017
POINT NO.3 : In the Affirmative
POINT NO.4 : In the Affirmative
POINT NO.5 : In the Affirmative
POINT NO.6 : As per the final order
for the following;
REASONS
18. POINT NO.1 to 5 : Since these points are interlinked, to avoid repetition and for the sake of brevity, they are together taken for consideration.
19. The prosecution has prosecuted the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 120 B r/w Sec.420, 468, 471 and 473 of IPC and the substantive offences thereof. It is needless to say that, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution. It is the cardinal principle of criminal law that every person is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved. Therefore, the entire burden is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons for the alleged offences beyond all reasonable doubts.
20. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has to prove all the necessary ingredients of the offences leveled against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, for better understanding and appreciation of the evidence 21 C.C.No.17622/2017 on record, it is just and proper to refer the ingredients/elements necessary to constitute the offence leveled against the accused persons.
21. Section 120 A of IPC gives definition of criminal conspiracy and Section 120B of the IPC provides punishment for committing the criminal conspiracy. Under Section 120-A, the criminal conspiracy is defined as under;
When two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done,-
(1) An illegal act; or (2) an act which is not illegal, by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.
Provided, no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some criminal act conspiracy besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuant thereof.
22. On going through the above provision, it is clear that the following are the necessary ingredients to constitute the criminal conspiracy.
(i) There should be an agreement between the parties who are alleged to conspire.
(ii) Such agreement should be either for doing an illegal act or for doing an act by illegal means.
22 C.C.No.17622/201723. The above provision does not contemplate the agreement shall be in writing. Therefore, the agreement may be express or implied or in part express or implied.
24. In a decision reported in (2002) 7 SCC 334 in between Mohd. Khalid Vs. State of West Bengal, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the elements of criminal conspiracy have been stated to be (a) an object to be accomplished, (b) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object, (c) an agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby they become definitely committed to co- operate for the accomplishment of the object by means embodied in the agreement, or by an effectual means and (d) in the jurisdiction where the statute required an overt act. The essence of a criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence is complete when the combination is framed.
25. Sec. 420 of IPC reads as under -
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 the valuable security, or any thing 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 7 years and shall also be liable to be fine.
23 C.C.No.17622/201726. From the above provision, it is clear that, in order to constitute the offence punishable under section 420 of the IPC, the following ingredients has to be proved;
i) there must be a deception i.e. the accused must have deceived someone.
ii) that by the said deception, the accused must induce a person to deliver any property or to make, alter or destroy whole or part of the valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into the valuable property.
iii) that the accused did so dishonestly.
27. Sec.415 of the IPC provides definition of cheating which reads as under;
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 intentionally retain any property, or induces the person so deceived 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, is said to "cheat". Explanation : A dishonest concealment of fact is a deception with the meaning of this section.
28. On reading of the above provision, it is clear that, the necessary ingredients of cheating are ;
(i) deception of any person ;
24 C.C.No.17622/2017(ii)(a) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property ;
(b) 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.
29. Section 415 read with Section 420 IPC indicates that fraudulent or dishonest inducement on the part of the accused must be at the inception and not at a subsequent stage.
30. The offence punishable under Section 468 of the IPC is concerned, it has to be read along with Section 463 and 464 of the IPC. Section 463 of the IPC gives definition for the offence 'forgery', Section 464 of the IPC deals with making of false documents and Section 468 of the IPC deals with forgery for the purpose of cheating.
31. The term 'forgery' is defined under Section 463 of the IPC as under;
"Section 463 : Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of the document or part of the electronic record, with an intention to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person or to support any claim or title or to cause any person to part with the property or to enter into any express 25 C.C.No.17622/2017 or implied contract, or with an intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
32. Section 464 of IPC deals with making a false document or electronic records which reads as under;
A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record -- First -- Who dishonestly or fraudulently
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed;
or Secondly -- Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or 26 C.C.No.17622/2017 Thirdly -- Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
33. On going through the above provisions, it is clear that, in order to constitute the offence of forgery, there should be ;
1. Making of false document or electronic record or part of it.
2. Such making of the false document or electronic record or part of it is with an intention to
(a) to cause damage or injury to (i) public or (ii) any person or
(b) to support any claim or title or
(c) to cause any person to part with the property or
(d) to cause any person to enter into express or implied contract or
(e) to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.
34. In order to prove the forgery, the prosecution has to prove the above elements in the crime.
27 C.C.No.17622/201735. The term 'making of the false documents' under Section 464 of the IPC implies that it must be a document or electronic record or part of it, dishonestly or fraudulently made and that should have been made, signed, sealed or executed with an intention of causing belief that it was made or executed by authority of a person who did not make or execute it and with the knowledge that it was not so made or executed.
36. Section 468 of IPC deals with punishment for forgery for purpose of cheating and it reads as under ;
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.
37. In order to bring home the offence under Section 468 of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following facts;
i) that the document has been forged as contemplated in Section 463 of the IPC
ii) that the accused forged the said document
iii) that the accused did so for the purpose of cheating.
38. So far as the offence under Section 471 of the IPC is concerned, Section 471 of the IPC deals with 28 C.C.No.17622/2017 using of the forged document or electronic records as genuine and punishment prescribed for it. It reads as under;
Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he 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.
39. On going through the above provision, the necessary ingredients of the said offence are that ;
i) the document or electronic record concerned was forged one to the knowledge of the accused, or is having reason to believe it to be a forged document ; and
ii) the accused fraudulently or dishonestly used such document/electronic record as genuine.
40. The forged document or electronic record is defined under Section 470 of IPC as under ;
'A false document or electronic record made wholly or in part by forgery is designated 'a forged document or electronic record'.
41. So far as the offence under Section 473 of IPC is concerned, Section 473 of IPC deals with making or processing counterfeit seals etc., with intent to commit 29 C.C.No.17622/2017 forgery and punishment prescribed for it. It reads as under;
Whoever makes or counterfeits any seal, plate or other instrument for making an impression, intending that the same shall be used for the purpose of committing any forgery which would be punishable under any section of this Chapter other than section 467, or, with such intent, has in his possession any such seal, plate or other instrument, knowing the same to be counterfeit, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
42. On going through the above provision, the necessary ingredients of the said offence are that ;
i) making or counterfeiting any seal, plate or other instrument for making an impression
ii) with an intention to be used for the purpose of committing any forgery.
43. Section 24 of IPC gives definition of 'dishonestly' which reads as under ;
Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly".
30 C.C.No.17622/201744. Section 25 of IPC gives definition of 'fraudulently' which reads as under ;
"A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise".
45. With the above aspects, now, the evidence on record is to be meticulously analysed so as to determine whether the prosecution has proved all the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused persons. On going through the prosecution case, it is clear that the major offence alleged against the accused persons is cheating of NCTE in the matter of taking recognition for D.El.Ed. and B.Ed., courses for accused No.1 institution with dishonest intention to cheat the NCTE and in that connection the accused persons had also committed the offence of conspiracy, creating of false documents, using the forged documents as genuine for the purpose of cheating and using of counterfeit seals with an intention to commit forgery.
46. As per the prosecution case, on 21.05.2007, Sree Sarada Education, Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society i.e. accused No.1 was registered with the District Registrar of Assurances, Ananthapur, under the Societies Registration Act vide No.35/2001 and on 20.09.2010 Sri S. Seshadri Reddy i.e. accused No.2 became the secretary of accused No.1 society.
31 C.C.No.17622/201747. The attested copies of the Certificate of Registration under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act No. 35 of 2001 marked under Ex.P-1, 2 and 4 reveals that "Sree Sarada Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society, Kandlapalli village, Koppalakonda Post, Pamidi Mandal, Ananthapura District" has been registered under the Societies Registration Act on 21.05.2007 vide No. 339 of 2007.
48. The attested copy of the Memorandum of Association of Sree Sarada Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society marked under Ex.P-1, 2 and 4 reveals that Sri. S. Sheshadri Reddy S/o Sri. Rajashekar Reddy was the President of the said society. Further, the attested copy of the resolution passed in the year 2010 marked under in Ex.P.1, 2 and 4 the Executive Committee has accepted the resignation of the President Sri. S. Sheshadri Reddy and elected Sri. P. Ramakrishna Reddy as new president. Further, the Resolution dated 20.09.2010 reveals that the resignation filed by the Secretary Smt. M. Sarada was accepted and elected Sri. S. Sheshadri Reddy as Secretary.
49. The Ex.P.1, 2 and 4 were marked through P.W.1 Smt. Uma Prassanna Kumar who identified these documents as accused No.1 society has submitted these 32 C.C.No.17622/2017 documents while applying for recognition of D.El.Ed., and B.Ed., courses. The Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 has suggested to the P.W.1 during the cross- examination that the P.W.2 and CBI officials in order to falsely implicate the accused No.1 and 2, they got created Ex.P.1 to 5 through her and she denied the said suggestion as false. Hence, according to accused No.1 and 2, these documents are created documents.
50. P.W.16 Sri. T.G. Reddy is the Senior Assistant Officer in District Registrar, Registration and Stamps Department, Ananthapura who deposed before the Court that he handed over the documents pertaining to accused No.1 society to the CBI as per Ex.P.56 and 57. Further, he deposed that Sri. Sheshadri Reddy has submitted the application along with declaration, memorandum of association, certificate of registration and connected documents under Ex.P.57 to the District Registrar and as per their records, the accused No.1 society had registered in their office as per Society Registration Act and initially it was represented by Sri. Sheshadri Reddy and subsequently he was replaced by Ramakrishna Reddy the President of Sree Sarada Education Society. He further states that they have issued the registration certificate 17.06.2015 in the name of Sarada Education Society. In his cross- examination, the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 33 C.C.No.17622/2017 has not denied the averments made in his chief examination.
51. Ex.P-56 is the original letter dated 04.10.2016 written by the District Registrar/Registrar of the Societies, Anantapuramu with respect to production of registered documents of the accused No. 1 Society. Ex.P- 57 is the attested copies of the letter dated 21.05.2007 issued by the accused No. 2 to the District Registrar(Societies), Anantapur wherein he requested for registration of the Society by producing Memorandum of Association, copy of the Rules and Regulations of the Association and attested copy of the Declaration, Certificate, Memorandum of Association, Present Executive Committee, Rules & Regulations, Certificate of Registration under the Societies Registration Act, Corresponding letters, Amendment of Bye-laws, Audit Report etc., Ex.P-56(a) is the signature of the District Registrar Sri. D.M Devaraju which was identified by the PW-16.
52. Though the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 contended that Ex.P.1, 2 and 4 documents are created documents, but as per oral evidence of P.W.16 and Ex.P.57 documents which clearly shows that the accused No.1 society was registered with the District Registrar of Assurances, Ananthapur, under the Societies Registration Act vide No.35/2001 on 34 C.C.No.17622/2017 21.05.2007. It is pertinent to note that the accused No.2 himself attested these documents with seal of the accused No.1 society and submitted to NCTE. Hence, there is no substance in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2.
53. In view of the above oral and documentary evidence, the prosecution has proved that Sree Sarada Education, Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society i.e. accused No.1 society was registered on 21.05.2007 vide No. 339 of 2007 with the District Registrar of Assurances, Ananthapur, under the Societies Registration Act and on 20.09.2010, Sri S. Seshadri Reddy i.e. accused No.2 became the secretary of accused No.1 society.
54. As per prosecution case, the accused No.2 has been running a school named Sri. Sarada Vidyaniketan English Medium School at Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu Village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh for classes 1 to 7 from the academic year 2010-11.
55. Further the attested copy of the proceedings of the District Educational Officer, Anantapuram dated 27.11.2010 marked under Ex.P-1 2 and 4 reveals that permission for provisional recognition for 5 years for the academic years from 2010-11 to 2014-15 for class I to 35 C.C.No.17622/2017 VII issued to Sri Sarada Vidyanikethan English Medium School, Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal subject to condition.
56. Ex.P-5(q) is the attested copy of the proceedings of the District Educational Officer, Anantapur dated 27.11.2010. It reveals that provisional recognition for period of 5 years for the academic years from 2010-11 to 2014-15 for the classes 1 to 7th English medium given to Sri. Sarada Vidyanikethan English Medium School, Akuledu village.
57. Ex.P-95 is the original letter of Mandal Educational Officer to the District Educational Officer and copy of the nominal roll of students and Blue Print of the building plan prepared by the PW-3 in respect to proposed construction of school building in Sy. No. 243/3 of Akuledu village to run Sree Sarada Vidyanikethan School. According to PW-35 Investigating Officer, these documents were seized during the course of searches conducted in the institution of accused No. 1 society on 05.07.2016.
58. Ex.P-99 is the original teachers attendance register of Sree Sarada Vidyanikethana School of Akuledu village, According to PW-35 Investigating Officer, this register was seized during the course of 36 C.C.No.17622/2017 searches conducted in the Institution of accused No. 1 on 05.07.2016.
59. P.W.19 Sri. P. Chandrayudu, Retired Mandal Education Officer, Ananthapur District deposed in his evidence that Ex.P.5(q) is the copy of the proceedings of the District Education Officer dated 27.11.2010 issued by the District Education Officer and as per the said proceedings, provisional recognition was given to the school namely Sree Sarada Vidyanikethan English Medium School, Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapur district for classes from I to VII for the year from 2010-11. The Ld. Counsels for accused No.1 to 3 have not cross examined the P.W.19.
60. In view of the above oral and documentary evidence, the prosecution has proved that the accused No.2 has been running a school named Sri. Sarada Vidyaniketan English Medium School at Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu Village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh for classes 1 to 7 from the academic year 2010-11.
61. As per the prosecution case, on 27.02.2015 the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) issued a public notice inviting applications for starting new education colleges/increase in intake of students.
37 C.C.No.17622/201762. Ex.P-108 is the certified copies of the Public Notices dated 27.02.2015 and 30.05.2015 issued by the Member Secretary, NCTE. As per the Public Notice dated 27.02.2015, NCTE invites applications for recognition of Teachers Training Program for the Academic Session 2016-17 and the applications in the prescribed form should be submitted on-line to the concerned regional committee along with fee and requisite documents as prescribed in NCTE Regulation 2014, from 01.03.2015 to 31.05.2015 only. As per public notice dated 30.05.2015, the time was extended for submission of on-line application up to 30.06.2015.
63. P.W.2 Smt. Revathy Reddy, the then Regional Director, NCTE, Bengaluru deposed in her evidence that NCTE, Bengaluru is an authority to give recognition for starting teacher education institutions and every year NCTE head quarters invites applications for recognition of teachers educational institutions in the months of March to May.
64. In view of Ex.P-108 the certified copies of the Public Notice dated 27.02.2015, NCTE invites applications for recognition of Teachers Training Program for the Academic Session 2016-17 and as per public notice dated 30.05.2015, the time was extended for submission of on-line application up to 30.06.2015.
38 C.C.No.17622/201765. In view of the above oral and documentary evidence, the prosecution has proved that on 27.02.2015 the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) issued a public notice inviting applications for starting new education colleges/increase in intake of students.
66. As per prosecution case, the NCTE Regulations, 2014 under which the applications were processed, specified the norms and standards for infrastructural facilities and as per Clause 6.1 (ii) of Appendix-4, the built up area and the land area required for running D.El.Ed. Plus B.Ed. Course is 3,000 square meter and the required documents has to be submitted for grant of formal recognition as per NCTE Regulations 2014.
67. Ex.P-6 is the certified copy of the Gazette Notification dated 28.11.2014 with respect to National Council for Teachers Education (Recognition Norms and Procedures) Regulations 2014. Rule 9 of the said Regulations reveals that, the Norms and Standards for Elementary Teachers Education Program leading to Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed) is mentioned in Appendix-2 and the Bachelor of Education Program leading to Bachelor of Education(B.Ed) Degree mentioned in Appendix-4.
39 C.C.No.17622/201768. As per Appendix-2 in Ex.P-6 Gazette Notification at Sl.No. 6 Facilities mentioned, wherein Sl.No. 6.1 speaks about Infrastructure and as per Sl.No. 6.1(a) the land and built up area for running D.El.Ed program in combination with other Teacher Education Program shall be as under:
69. Further, as per Sl.No. 6.1(b) of Appendix-2 in Ex.P-6, it is mentioned that the Institution must have the Infrastructure of one class room for every 50 students, multipurpose hall with capacity of 200 with dais with total area of 2000 square feet, library cum resource center, curriculum laboratory, computer lab etc.,
70. As per Appendix-4 in Ex.P-6 Gazette Notification at column No. 6 Facilities mentioned, wherein Sl.No.6.1 speaks about Infrastructure and as per Sl.No.6.1(ii) the land and built up area for running other Teacher Education Program in combination with B.Ed program shall be as under:
Course(s) Built Up Area (in Land Area (in sqm) sqm) B.Ed/Education 1500 2500 Component of B.A, B.Ed/B.Sc.B.Ed D.E.C.Ed plus B.Ed 2500 3000 D.El.Ed plus B.Ed 3000 3000 B.Ed plus M.Ed 2000 3000 D.E.C.Ed plus B.Ed 3000 3500 40 C.C.No.17622/2017 plus M.Ed D.El.Ed plus B.Ed plus 3500 3500 M.Ed D.El.Ed plus D.E.C.Ed 4000 4000 plus B.Ed plus M.Ed
71. Further, as per Sl.No.6.1(ii) of Appendix-4 in Ex.P-6, it is mentioned that the Institution must have the Infrastructure of one class room for every 50 students, multipurpose hall with capacity of 200 with dais with total area of 2000 square feet, library cum resource center, curriculum laboratory, ICT resource center etc., Further in the said Notification, the faculty, staff structure also mentioned.
72. According to the Ex.P-6 NCTE Regulations, 2014, the land and built up area to run D.El.Ed., plus B.Ed. Program is 3000 square meters.
73. P.W.1 Smt. Uma Prasanna Kumar deposed in her evidence that as per 2014 Regulations, in order to obtain sanction, the institution must have land area for the course of Diploma in Elementary Education is 2500 square meter out of which built up area must be 1500 square meter and the same norms is applicable to B.Ed., course also and in case D.El.Ed., and B.Ed., course are taken in composite, then the institution must have 3000 square meter of area and the same area i.e. 3000 square meter built up area.41 C.C.No.17622/2017
74. P.W.2 Smt. Revathi Reddy the then Regional Director, NCTE, Bengaluru deposed in her evidence that in order to start composite college for 2 programs, prescribed land space is 2500 square meter each program and 500 square meter for 2nd program and totally for composite college, there should be 3000 square meter space.
75. In view of the oral and documentary evidence, the land and built-up area required for running the D.El.Ed. + B.Ed. Course is 3000 square meter and required documents has to be submitted for grant for formal recognition as per NCTE Regulations, 2014.
76. As per the prosecution case, accused No.1 represented by accused No.2 and 3 entered into a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of conspiracy, schemed to get formal recognition for running D.El.Ed.
and B.Ed. Courses in the name of Sree Sarada Education (D.El.Ed. and B.Ed.) College, Akuledu, Ananthapur District under the aegis of accused No.1 society with the available infrastructure of Sri. Sarada Vidyaniketan School and without having the infrastructure required for running the said composite course as specified in the NCTE Regulations, 2014 and in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, on 22.05.2015 accused No.2 and accused No.3 re-constituted the Executive Committee of accused No.1 Society and elected 42 C.C.No.17622/2017 Smt. K. Lakshmi Devi who is wife of accused No.3 as the treasurer of the accused No.1 Society.
77. In Ex.P.1, 2 and 4, the attested copies of the resolution passed in the year 2010, the Executive Committee has accepted the resignation of the President Sri. S. Sheshadri Reddy and elected Sri. P. Ramakrishna Reddy as new president. Further, the Resolution dated 20.09.2010 reveals that the resignation filed by the Secretary Smt. M. Sarada was accepted and elected Sri. S. Sheshadri Reddy as Secretary.
78. Further, the true copy of the resolution dated 20.09.2010 marked in Ex.P.56 which reveals that the accused No.2 elected as secretary of accused No.1 society unanimously. Further, the true copy of the resolution dated 22.05.2015 in Ex.P.56 reveals that Smt. Laksmidevi elected as Treasurer to the accused No.1 society. The Ex.P.56 true copies of the documents marked through P.W.16. These documents obtained from the concerned authority which reveals that the Executive Committee of accused No.1 society has been reconstituted on 22.05.2015 and Smt. K. Lakshmidevi elected as treasurer of the accused No.1 society.
79. P.W.25 Smt. Kummari Lakshmidevi W/o Sri. Obalpathy deposed in her evidence that accused No.3 is her husband and she studied up to to 10th standard. She 43 C.C.No.17622/2017 further states that the Certificate of Registration issued by District Registrar, Anananthapur in favour of Sree Sarada Education Society and it consists copy of the memorandum of association, members details and copy of her Aadhar card and in the details of the members, she was shown as treasurer of Sree Sarada Education Society. Hence, the evidence of P.W.25 and Ex.P.1, 2, 4 and 56 clearly shows that P.W.25 who is the wife of accused No.3 shown as treasurer of the accused No.1 society.
80. As per the prosecution case, the accused persons in pursuance of conspiracy, also changed the address of the accused No.1 society from Kandlapalli village to Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu Village, Ananthapur District.
81. The attested copy of the Acknowledgment of Amendment of Society dated 17.06.2015 in Ex.P-1, 2 and 4 reveals that the Registrar, Ananthapur has acknowledged the change of place of registered society inside the district on the basis of the documents filed in pursuance of section 9 and 10 of Societies Registration Act in respect to society No. 339 of 2007. Further, the attested copy of the documents under section 9 and 10 of Societies Registration Act reveals that Sree Sarada Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society has changed the address as Sy. No. 241/2, 44 C.C.No.17622/2017 Akuledu village and post, Anantapur, Singanamala, Andhra Pradesh.
82. Further, the true copy of the resolution dated 22.05.2015 is marked in Ex.P.56 through P.W.16 which reveals that resolution made to change the address of the accused No.1 society from Kandalapalli village, Koppalakonda Post, Pamadi Mandal, Ananthapura District to Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapura District. Further, true copy of the certificate of registration dated 17.06.2015 also reveals that the address of the accused No.1 society is at Akuledu village, Singanamala, Ananthapura district. Hence, these documents which were obtained from the concerned authority clearly shows that address of the accused No.1 society has been changed in the year 2015.
83. As per the prosecution case, on 26.05.2015 the accused person in pursuance of criminal conspiracy got the property at Sy.No.241/2 Akuledu village, transferred from the name of accused No.2 to the name of accused No.1 Society.
84. The attested copy of the Gift Deed dated 26.05.2015 in Ex.P-1, 2 and 4 reveals that the accused No. 2 gifted 1 acre of agriculture land in Sy. No. 241/2 situated at Akuledu village, Siniganamalu Mandal, Anantapuramu, Andhra Pradesh to Sree Sarada 45 C.C.No.17622/2017 Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society.
85. Ex.P-53 and 54 are the statement of Encumbrance on property bearing Sy. No. 241/2 of Akuledu village which reveals that Gift Settlement was executed by the accused No. 2 in favour of accused No. 1 Society and the said document was registered and executed on 26.05.2015. Ex.P-55 is the certified copy of the Gift Deed executed by the accused No. 2 in favour of accused No. 1 Society on 26.05.2015 and gifted the land bearing Sy. No. 241/2 measuring 01 acre situated at Akuledu village.
86. P.W.15 - Sri. M. Jameel Ahmad Superintendent, office of the DIG, Stamps, Ananathapura deposed in his evidence that he handed over the Ex.P.52 to 55 documents to the CBI. He further states that as per Ex.P.55 gift deed dated 26.05.2015 with respect to land measuring 1 acre in Sy.NO.241/2 of Akuledu village, it was executed by the accused No.2 in favour of accused No.1 society and the said property transferred in the name of accused No.1 society as per gift deed document No.614/2015. Though, P.W.15 cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2, but not disputed the execution of Ex.P.55 document by accused No.2.
46 C.C.No.17622/201787. Ex.P-51 is the letter dated 06.10.2016 written by the PW-15 Sri. M. Jameel Ahmed for forwarding of the documents i.e copies of applications for issue of E.C and Encumbrance Receipt and Ex.P-51(a) is the signature of PW-15. Ex.P-52 is the applications for issuance of Encumbrance Certificate and receipt. It reveals that the accused No. 2 filed the applications for issuance of Encumbrance Certificate in respect to land bearing Sy. No. 241/2 measuring 01 acre of Akuledu village and he has paid the amount of Rs. 225/- on 01.02.2016. The Ex.P-52 was marked subject to objection. But, for what purpose the objection has been raised is not stated in the evidence. Ex.P-52 documents are the copies and these three documents produced by PW-15 with his signatures and office seal.
88. In view of the above oral and documentary evidence, it is proved that Executive Committee of accused No.1 society was reconstituted on 22.05.2015 and elected Smt. K. Lakshmidevi who is the wife of accused No.3 as treasurer of the accused No.1 society and the address of the accused No.1 society changed from Kandalapalli village, Koppalakonda Post, Pamadi Mandal, Ananthapura District to Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapura District by passing resolution dated 22.05.2015 and accused No.2 transferred the 1 acre of land in Sy.No.241/2 from his 47 C.C.No.17622/2017 name to the name of the accused No.1 society through gift deed dated 26.05.2015.
89. As per the prosecution case, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, accused No.2 and 3 obtained NOC dated 25.05.2015 from State Council for Educational Research and Training (SCERT), Hyderabad for D.El.Ed. Course and NOC dated 29.05.2015 from Sri. Krishnadevaraya University, Ananthapur District for B.Ed. Course.
90. The attested copy of the proceedings of the Director, State Council of Educational Research and Training, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad dated 25.05.2015 marked in Ex.P-1 and 2 and original proceedings marked in Ex.P-3 at sheet No. 7 reveals that the School Educational Department has no objection to permit the Sree Sarada D.Ed college Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal to start Diploma in Elementary Education course from the year 2016-17 and further it is mentioned in the said proceedings that it does not confirm any right and any lapses regarding all requirements, both infrastructural and instructional facilities noticed in future at the time of periodical inspections, the no objection stands to be canceled.
91. Ex.P-63 is the original letter dated 27.10.2016 written by the Director of SCERT, Andhra Pradesh for 48 C.C.No.17622/2017 submitting the attested copies of the documents and also furnishing information sought by the Investigating Officer. Ex.P-63(a) is the signature of the Director which is identified by the PW-18. Ex.P-64 is the attested copy of the check list dated 23.05.2015 for issue of NOC to establish D.El.Ed course for the year 2016-17 for the accused No. 1 Society. It reveals that, the Co-ordinator has made remarks that the land is not in the name of Society.
92. Ex.P-65 is the attested copy of the proceedings of the Director, SCERT, Andhra Pradesh dated 25.05.2015. It reveals that tentative No Objection Certificate issued to the Sri. Sarada D.Ed college to start Diploma in Elementary Education course from the year 2016-17.
93. The above said Ex.P.63 to 65 documents got marked through P.W.18 Sri. K. Ananjaiah the then District Education Officer, Ananthapura.
94. Ex.P-78 is the attested copy of the proceedings of the Director, SCERT, Andhra Pradesh dated 25.02.2015 for issuance of NOC to start D.El.Ed course by the Sri. Sarada D.Ed college, Akuledu village.
95. P.W.23 - Dr. K. Panduranga Swamy is the then then District Education Officer who deposed that 49 C.C.No.17622/2017 tentative no objection certificate dated 25.05.2015 issued by the Director, SCERT in faour of Sree Sarada D.Ed. College Akuledu to start D.Ed. Course for the academic year 2016-17 as per Ex.P.78. The Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 to 3 have not cross examined P.W.23.
96. P.W.20 Sri. V. Premanandam the then Regional Joint Director of School Education deposed before the court that Sree Sarada Education society had made an application to the SCERT requesting for grant of affiliation for the D.Ed. Course in their college.
97. Ex.P-97 is the spiral binding booklet of Sree Sarada D.El.Ed college containing the copies of the correspondence to the Regional Director, SRCNCTE, Bengaluru and copies of the on-line applications with accused No. 1 Society documents, Receipt for D.D, Undertaking, Gift Deed, NOC, Soundness Certificate, Proceedings of Director, SCERT, Andhra Pradesh etc., According to PW-35 Investigating Officer, these documents were seized during the course of searches conducted in the Institution of accused No. 1 on 05.07.2016. In the copy of the letter, the original seal of Office of the Regional Director, SRCNCTE was affixed with number 150642 dated 18.06.2015 in respect to receive of the application.
50 C.C.No.17622/201798. The above oral and documentary evidence clearly reveals that the accused No.1 society made application to the SCERT for grant of affiliation to start D.El.Ed. course and on 25.05.2015 tentative NOC issued to Sri. Sarada D.Ed. college to start Diploma in Elementary Education course from the year 2016-17.
99. The original NOC dated 29.05.2015 marked in Ex.P.5 and attested copy of the NOC dated 29.05.2015 marked in Ex.P-4 reveals that the Registrar of Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Ananantapur issued No Objection Certificate to start B.Ed two years course from the academic year 2016-17 in accused No. 1 Society.
100. Ex.P-58 is the original letter dated 07.10.2016 written by the Registrar of Sri. Krishnadevaraya University, Anantapur for furnishing of clarification that the said University issued No Objection Certificate dated 29.05.2015 to Sri. Sarada College of Education, Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal to start B.Ed course and the University granted temporary affiliation to the Institution after duly compliance of the procedures. Ex.P- 59 is the No Objection Certificate dated 29.05.2015 issued by the Registrar, Sri. Krishnadevaraya University. Ex.P-59(a) is the signature of the Registrar which was identified by the PW-17. Ex.P-60 is the original application dated 25.05.2015 for NOC for Sri. Sarada 51 C.C.No.17622/2017 B.Ed college, Akuledu village submitted by the accused No. 2 to the Registrar of S.K University, Anantapuramu.
101. P.W.17 Sri. Phaniswara Raju the then principal of University College of Education, Sri Krishnadevaraya University Ananthapura who deposed that he was deputed to hand over the documents to the CBI by the Registrar and he handed over the Ex.P.58 to 62 documents to CBI. Further, he states that as per Ex.P.59 no objection certificate dated 29.05.2015 issued by the Registrar of their University in favour of Sarada Education Society. In his cross-examination, it is suggested by the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 that their University had given NOC for affiliation of B.Ed. College and the same is admitted by the P.W.17 as true. Further, he states that he has not verified inward and outward register in order to confirmation that whether Sree Sarada Education had applied for affiliation or not. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P.60 is the original application dated 25.05.2015 submitted by the accused No.2 to the Registrar of the Sri. Krishnadevarya University, Anananthapura for issuance of NOC to start Sree Sarada B.Ed. College, Akuledu village. On the basis of this application, the University has given NOC as per Ex.P.59 document. Ex.P.59 and 60 are the original documents produced by the concerned authority. When the original application is on record and 52 C.C.No.17622/2017 it was received by the University by making endorsement and the same is clarified in Ex.P.58 original letter by the Registrar, then verification of inward and outward register is not necessary.
102. Ex.P-96 is the spiral binding booklet of Sree Sarada B.Ed college containing the copies of the correspondence to the Regional Director, SRCNCTE, Bengaluru and copies of the on-line applications with accused No. 1 Society documents, Receipt for D.D, Undertaking, Gift Deed, NOC, Soundness Certificate, Proceedings of DEO, Anantapur etc., According to PW-35 Investigating Officer, these documents were seized during the course of searches conducted in the Institution of accused No. 1 on 05.07.2016. In the copy of the letter, the original seal of Office of the Regional Director, SRCNCTE was affixed with number 150641 dated 18.06.2015 in respect to receive of the application.
103. Ex.P-98 is the spiral binding booklet of Sree Sarada D.Ed college containing the copies check list, Proceedings of the Director, SCERT, Andhra Pradesh, Correspondence letters, staff profile, applications of the Teaching Staff, Service certificate, Marks cards etc., According to PW-35 Investigating Officer, these documents were seized during the course of searches conducted in the Institution of accused No. 1 on 05.07.2016.
53 C.C.No.17622/2017104. In view of the above oral and documentary evidence, prosecution has proved that accused No.2 obtained NOC dated 25.05.2015 from State Council for Educational Research and Training (SCERT), Hyderabad for D.El.Ed. Course and NOC dated 29.05.2015 from Sri. Krishnadevaraya University, Ananthapur District for B.Ed. Course.
105. As per the prosecution case, during this period, accused No.3 also approached Sri. B. Thirupalu, Engineer and Proprietor, M/s Apex Constructions, Ananthapur district and obtained a building plan in the name of Sree Sarada Education D.El.Ed. and B.Ed. College at Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu Village, Ananthapur district showing ground floor plus three floors, whereas the available buildings at this survey number had only ground floor plus first floor.
106. The attested copies of the building plan which were submitted along with applications marked in Ex.P.1, 2 and 4. Further, the attested copy of the building plan which was submitted to visiting team of NCTE marked as Ex.P.5 (f). It reveals that the said building plan prepared by Sri. B. Thirupal i.e PW-9(CW-
11).
107. Ex.P-5(d) is the copy of the building plan and Ex.P-39 is the original building plan which was approved 54 C.C.No.17622/2017 by the Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayath, Singanamala (Mdl.). It reveals that the said building plan prepared by Sri. B. Thirupal i.e PW-9(CW-11). Further, it contains the seal and signature of the Panchayath Secretary, Akuledu village, Singanamala (Mdl.) and also seal of the accused No. 1 Society and signature of the accused No. 2.
108. P.W.9 Sri. Thirupal B., Consulting Civil Engineer, proprietor of M/s Apex Constructions, Ananathapura deposed in his evidence that he prepared Ex.P.5 (d) and (f) building plans pertaining to Sree Sarada B.Ed. College and it bears his signatures and office seal and he prepared the said plan in his office without visiting the spot at the instruction of accused No.3. He further states that accused No.3 asked him to prepare building plan for the purpose of obtaining permission of B.Ed., and D.El.Ed., colleges. He further states that as per his plan, the total corporate block A comprising of ground plus 3 floors in 9.273 square feet and total built up area in the building plan as per Ex.P.5(f) is 27,536.93 square feet and as per Ex.P.5 (d), the total built up area is 35,324.87 square feet. Further he states that after receiving the notice from CBI, he visited the site situated at Sy.No. 241/2 of Akuledu village and noticed the existence of only one incomplete building.
55 C.C.No.17622/2017109. P.W.9 was subjected to cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 to 3 wherein he states that Municipal Corporation of Anananthapura issued the license to him for authorizing him to issue building plan, but he has not produced the said license to the Court. It is pertinent to note that P.W.9 is the author of the Ex.P.5(f) and Ex.P.39/Ex.P.5(d) building plans who identified the said documents and his signatures on the documents. Further, P.W.10 auto CAD operator in M/s Apex constructions of the P.W.9 also supported the case of the prosecution and deposed that these building plans prepared by the P.W.9. Hence, there are corroborating evidence to establish that these building plans prepared by the P.W.9.
110. As per the prosecution case, the accused No.3 and 2 arranged funds and obtained demand drafts dated 29.05.2015 and 03.06.2015 respectively towards processing fee for the D.El.Ed. and B.Ed. Courses applications.
111. The attested copy of the Demand Draft bearing No.027412 dated 29.05.2015 of ICICI bank marked in Ex.P-1 and 2 reveals that demand draft of Rs.1,50,000/- was taken in favour of Member Secretary, NCTE, Bengaluru.
56 C.C.No.17622/2017112. The attested copy of the Demand Draft bearing No. 027413 dated 03.06.2015 of ICICI bank marked in Ex.P-4 reveals that demand draft of Rs.1,50,000/- was taken in favour of Member Secretary, NCTE, Bengaluru.
113. Further the attested copies of Demand Draft application form dated 29.05.2015 marked in Ex.P-1, 2 and 4 reveals that Sri. S. Sheshadri Reddy (accused No.2) who is the applicant issued the cheque No.340018 from the account No. 630901513635 for issuance of demand draft for Rs.1,50,000/- and another Demand Draft application form dated 03.06.2015 reveals that the applicant by name Sri. S. Sheshadri Reddy (accused No.2) issued the cheque No. 340019 from the same account for issuance of demand draft for Rs. 1,50,000/- favouring the Member Secretary, NCTE and paid cash of Rs. 513/-. These documents clearly shows that the accused No. 2 has taken the demand draft for Rs. 1,50,000/- each in favour of NCTE on 29.05.2015 and 03.06.2015. The accused No.2 himself self attested these documents with seal of accused No.1 society.
114. As per prosecution case, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, the accused No.2 and 3 submitted the online applications in the name of accused No.1 society for obtaining formal recognition for D.El.Ed., and 57 C.C.No.17622/2017 B.Ed. Courses on 29.05.2015 and 05.06.2015 respectively.
115. As per Ex.P.108 certified copy of the Public Notice dated 27.02.2015, NCTE invites applications for recognition of Teachers Training Programme for the Academic Session 2016-17 and the applications in the prescribed form should be submitted on-line to the concerned regional committee along with fee and requisite documents as prescribed in NCTE Regulation 2014. According to Ex.P.108, the application in the prescribed form should be submitted online along with fee and requisite documents to the concerned Regional Committee.
116. Ex.P-1 and 2 are the two separate spiral binding books titled as SRCAPP3400-1 and SRCAPP3400-2 - Sree Sarada D.El.ED College, Akuledu Village, Singanamala (Mandal), Ananthapuramu District, containing the attested copies of the letter addressed to the Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee (NCTE), Nagarabhavi, Jnanabharathi Campus road, Bengaluru and attested copy of the D.D bearing No. 027412 of ICICI bank, attested copies of the application I.D No. SRCAPP3400, Affidavit, Undertaking, Gift Deed dated 26.05.2015, Aadhar cards, Proceedings of the District Educational Officer, Ananthapur dated 27.11.2010, Site plan, Statement of Encumbrance on 58 C.C.No.17622/2017 Property, Proceedings of the Director, State Council for Educational Research and Training, Hyderabad dated 25.05.2015, Soundness Certificate dated 26.03.2015, NOC, Sanitary Certificate, Certificate of Registration, Memorandum of Association, Resolutions, List of Executive Committee Members, Acknowledgment of Amendment of Society. It is pertinent note that all these documents are attested by the accused No. 2 with the seal of Secretary, for Sri Sarada Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society.
117. The self attested copy of the letter submitted by Sri. S. Sheshadri Reddy, Secretary of Sree Sarada Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society to the Regional Director, SRC, NCTE, Bengaluru marked in Ex.P-1 and 2 reveals that he has submitted the on-line application 4 sets-1 original and 3 xerox sets for new D.El.Ed course basic units of 50+50 seats recognition in the name and style of Sree Sarada D.El.Ed college at Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal along with original D.D No. 027412 dated 29.05.2015 for Rs. 1,50,000/- with all necessary enclosures with reference to SRCAPP3400 and NCTE public notice dated 25.02.2015. In this letter, it is stated that he is enclosing the on-line application for grant of recognition, processing paid receipt, original notarized affidavit, original notarized undertaking, certified copies of land 59 C.C.No.17622/2017 documents, land conversion certificate, E.C, copy of the building plan and proceedings approved by the competent authority, copy of building completion certificate by Government Engineer, Certificate of Registration, Memorandum of Association and Bye-laws of society, NOC, NAAC submission application, original D.D for Rs. 1,50,000/-.
118. Further the self attested copy of the affidavit submitted by the accused No. 2 to NCTE marked in Ex.P-1 and 2 reveals that the accused No. 2 who is the authorized signatory of the application made to Regional Committee of NCTE, Bengalru seeking grant of recognition for conducting a course in Sree Sarada D.El.Ed college at Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal. Further, it reveals that accused No. 2 mentioned the total area of land as 1 acre and built up area is 2558.178 meters.
119. Further the self attested copy of the undertaking submitted by the accused No. 2 to NCTE marked in Ex.P-1 and 2 reveals that he gone through the NCTE Act 1993 and NCTE regulations 2014 and fully aware of all the conditions to be fulfilled for grant of recognition and he shall be fully responsible for submission of any wrong information and if the information furnished in the application is wrong, action 60 C.C.No.17622/2017 may be initiated against him/ Sree Sarada Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society.
120. Ex.P-3 is the NCTE file titled as 2016-17 D.O.R 18.06.2015, D.El.Ed course SRCAPP3400 -Sree Sarada D.El.Ed college, Flat No. 241/2, 2 nd street, Akuledu village and Post, Singanamala Taluk, Anantapur District, Sree Sarada Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society, containing original undertaking submitted by the accused No. 2, original declaration submitted by the accused No. 2, original NOC issued by the Panchayath Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayath, Singanamala (Mdl.), Original sanitary certificate issued by Panchayath Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayath, Singanamala (Mdl.), Original Soundness Certificate dated 26.03.2015 issued by Mandal Engineering Officer, M.P. Singanamala, original affidavit of the accused No. 2, Proceedings of the Director SCERT, copies of the on-line application, original letter written by the accused No. 2 to Regional Director, SRC, NCTE, cash receipt dated 07.07.2015, original letter written by the accused No. 2 to Regional Director for consideration of B.Ed and D.Ed application, Meetings of SRC, copy of the Recommendation, original Receipt Memo dated 21.07.2016, original office note, original scrutiny of application, original visit schedule, copy of the order of the NCTE dated 02.05.2016, meetings note, 61 C.C.No.17622/2017 original letter dated 02.05.2016 submitted by the accused No. 2, original letter dated 07.03.2016 written by accused No. 2, proceedings of the Director SCERT dated 16.03.2016, Annexure-1, original affidavits submitted by the accused No. 2 and other lecturers separately, copies of the Resolution, Call letter, marks cards etc.
121. The original letter written by the accused No. 2 who is the Secretary of Sree Sarada Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society to the Regional Director, SRC, NCTE, Bengaluru marked in Ex.P-3 at sheet No.18 reveals that he has submitted the on-line application 4 sets-1 original and 3 xerox sets for new D.El.Ed course basic units of 50+50 seats recognition in the name and style of Sree Sarada D.El.Ed college at Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal along with original D.D No. 027412 dated 29.05.2015 for Rs. 1,50,000/- with all necessary enclosures with reference to SRCAPP3400 and NCTC public notice dated 25.02.2015. In this letter, it is stated that he is enclosing the on-line application for grant of recognition, processing paid receipt, original notarized affidavit, original notarized undertaking, certified copies of land documents, land conversion certificate, E.C, copy of the building plan and proceedings approved by the competent authority, copy of building completion certificate by Government 62 C.C.No.17622/2017 Engineer, Certificate of Registration, Memorandum of Association and Bye-laws of society, NOC, NAAC submission application, original D.D for Rs. 1,50,000/-. This letter was received by the office of Regional Director, SRC on 18.06.2015 along with original cash receipt of Rs. 1,50,000/- (at sheet No. 19 of Ex.P-3) and printed copy of the on-line application (at sheet No. 8 to 17 of Ex.P-3), NOC issued by the Director of SCERT, Hyderabad, original affidavit of the accused No. 2 regarding built up area, original Soundness Certificate, Sanitary certificate, NOC and original Declaration and original Undertaking. These documents clearly shows that, the accused No. 2 has written a letter with printed copy of the on-line application submitted for recognition of D.El.Ed course along with the affidavit, Declaration, Soundness certificate, Sanitary certificate, NOC, Undertaking.
122. The original affidavit in Ex.P-3 at sheet No. 4 reveals that the accused No. 2 filed the affidavit that 1 acre land is in the possession of accused No. 1 society and built up area is 2558.178 meters.
123. The original Undertaking issued by the accused No. 2 marked in Ex.P-3 at sheet No. 5 reveals that, he is fully aware of the conditions to be fulfilled for grant of recognition and he is responsible for submission of wrong information.
63 C.C.No.17622/2017124. The original note sheet in Ex.P-3 reveals that SRC-NCTE, Bengaluru has received the on-line application on 05.06.2015 for D.El.Ed course from Sree Sarada D.El.Ed college which is run by the Sree Sarada Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society and hard copy of the application submitted by hand on 18.06.2015 along with D.D bearing No. 027412 dated 29.05.2015 for Rs. 1,50,000/- along with the NOC issued by the Director, SCERT, Hyderabad. Further it reveals that the deficiency in the application and documents noted that the application is not duly signed by the applicant on all pages and the certified copy of the land document is not submitted and put up for orders. Further it reveals that the SRC in its meeting 291th meeting held during 20th and 21st of August 2015 decided to summarily reject the application as certified copy of the land document is not submitted.
125. The copy of the decision of the 291st meeting of SRC is marked in Ex.P-3 at sheet No. 21 to 25 which reveals that the application was summarily rejected as certified copy of the land document is not submitted.
126. Ex.P-4 is the spiral binding book titled as SRCAPP3401-1 Sree Sarada B.Ed College, Akuledu Village, Singanamala (Mandal), Ananthapuramu District, containing the attested copies of the letter addressed to 64 C.C.No.17622/2017 the Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee (NCTE), Nagarabhavi, Jnanabharathi Campus road, Bengaluru and attested copy of the D.D bearing No. 027413 of ICICI bank, attested copies of the application I.D No. SRCAPP3401, Affidavit, Undertaking, Gift Deed dated 26.05.2015, Aadhar cards, Proceedings of the District Educational Officer, Ananthapur dated 27.11.2010, Site plan, Statement of Encumbrance on Property, NOC dated 29.05.2015 issued by the Registrar, Sri Krishnadevara University, Anantapura to start B.Ed two years course, Soundness Certificate dated 26.03.2015, NOC, Sanitary Certificate, Certificate of Registration, Memorandum of Association, Resolutions, List of Executive Committee Members, Acknowledgment of Amendment of Society. It is pertinent note that all these documents are attested by the accused No. 2 with the seal of Secretary, for Sri Sarada Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society.
127. The self attested copy of the letter submitted by Sri. S. Sheshadri Reddy, Secretary of Sree Sarada Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society to the Regional Director, SRC, NCTE, Bengaluru in Ex.P-4 reveals that he has submitted the on-line application 4 sets-1 original and 3 xerox sets for new B.Ed course basic units of 100 seats recognition in the name and style of Sree Sarada B.Ed college at Akuledu 65 C.C.No.17622/2017 village, Singanamala Mandal along with original D.D No. 027413 dated 03.06.2015 for Rs. 1,50,000/- with all necessary enclosures with reference to SRCAPP3401 and NCTE public notice dated 25.02.2015. In this letter, it is stated that he is enclosing the on-line application for grant of recognition, processing paid receipt, original notarized affidavit, original notarized undertaking, certified copies of land documents, land conversion certificate, E.C, copy of the building plan and proceedings approved by the competent authority, copy of building completion certificate by Government Engineer, Certificate of Registration, Memorandum of Association and Bye-laws of society, NOC, NAAC submission application, original D.D for Rs. 1,50,000/-.
128. Further the self attested copy of the affidavit submitted by the accused No. 2 to NCTE marked in Ex.P-4 reveals that the accused No. 2 who is the authorized signatory of the application made to Regional Committee of NCTE, Bengaluru seeking grant of recognition for conducting a course in Sree Sarada B.Ed college at Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal. Further, it reveals that accused No. 2 mentioned the total area of land as 1 acre and built up area is 2558.178 meters.
129. Further the self attested copy of the undertaking submitted by the accused No. 2 to NCTE 66 C.C.No.17622/2017 marked in Ex.P-4 reveals that he gone through the NCTE Act 1993 and NCTE regulations 2014 and fully aware of all the conditions to be fulfilled for grant of recognition and he shall be fully responsible for submission of any wrong information and if the information furnished in the application is wrong, action may be initiated against him/ Sree Sarada Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society.
130. Ex.P-5 is the NCTE file titled as 2016-17 D.O.R 18.06.2015, B.Ed course SRCAPP3401 -Sree Sarada B.Ed college, Flat No. 241/2, 2nd street, Akuledu village and Post, Singanamala Taluk, Anantapur District, Sree Sarada Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society, containing original undertaking submitted by the accused No. 2, original declaration submitted by the accused No. 2, original NOC issued by the Panchayath Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayath, Singanamala (Mdl.), Original sanitary certificate issued by Panchayath Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayath, Singanamala (Mdl.), Original Soundness Certificate dated 26.03.2015 issued by Mandal Engineering Officer, M.P. Singanamala, original affidavit of the accused No. 2, original NOC dated 29.05.2015 issued by Registrar, Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Anantpur, copies of the on- line application, original letter written by the accused No. 2 to Regional Director, SRC, NCTE, cash receipt dated 67 C.C.No.17622/2017 07.07.2015, original letter dated 02.12.2015 written by the accused No. 2 to Regional Director for consideration of B.Ed and D.Ed application, Meetings of SRC, original questionnaires filled by the Institution along with the declarations, original Visiting Team report on inspection on Institution, Corresponding letters, original affidavits of the accused No. 2 and original affidavits of Teaching Staff, Original Staff profile, attested copy of the building plan, original note sheet, original scrutiny of application, original visit schedule, copy of the order of the NCTE dated 02.05.2016 etc.
131. The original letter written by the accused No. 2 who is the Secretary of Sree Sarada Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society to the Regional Director, SRC, NCTE, Bengaluru marked in Ex.P-5 at sheet No. 75 reveals that he has submitted the on-line application 4 sets-1 original and 3 xerox sets for new B.Ed course basic units of 100 seats recognition in the name and style of Sree Sarada B.Ed college at Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal along with original D.D No. 027412 dated 03.06.2015 for Rs. 1,50,000/- with all necessary enclosures with reference to SRCAPP3401 and NCTE public notice dated 25.02.2015. In this letter, it is stated that he is enclosing the on-line application for grant of recognition, processing paid receipt, original notarized affidavit, original notarized undertaking, 68 C.C.No.17622/2017 certified copies of land documents, land conversion certificate, E.C, copy of the building plan and proceedings approved by the competent authority, copy of building completion certificate by Government Engineer, Certificate of Registration, Memorandum of Association and Bye-laws of society, NOC, NAAC submission application, original D.D for Rs. 1,50,000/-. This letter was received by the office of Regional Director, SRC on 18.06.2015 along with original cash receipt of Rs. 1,50,000/- (at sheet No. 76 of Ex.P-5) and printed copy of the on-line application (at sheet No. 8 to 17 of Ex.P-5), original NOC issued by the Registrar of Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Anantapur, Original affidavit of the accused No. 2 regarding built up area, Original Soundness Certificate, Sanitary certificate, NOC and Original Declaration and original Undertaking. These documents clearly shows that, the accused No. 2 has written a letter with printed copy of the on-line application submitted for recognition of B.Ed course along with the affidavit, Declaration, Soundness certificate, Sanitary certificate, NOC, Undertaking.
132. The original affidavit marked in Ex.P-5 at sheet No. 7 reveals that the accused No. 2 filed the affidavit that 1 acre land is in the possession of accused No. 1 society and built up area is 2558.178 meters.
69 C.C.No.17622/2017133. The original Undertaking submitted by the accused No. 2 marked in Ex.P-5 at sheet No. 6 reveals that, he is fully aware of the conditions to be fulfilled for grant of recognition and he is responsible for submission of wrong information.
134. The original note sheet in Ex.P-5 reveals that SRC-NCTE, Bengaluru has received the on-line application on 05.06.2015 for B.Ed course from Sree Sarada B.Ed college which is run by the Sree Sarada Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society and hard copy of the application submitted by hand on 18.06.2015 along with D.D bearing No. 027413 dated 03.06.2015 for Rs. 1,50,000/- along with the NOC issued by the Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Anantapuram. Further it reveals that a copy of the application of Sree Sarada B.Ed college was sent to the Department of Higher Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh seeking the recommendation in respect of the Institution for offering B.Ed course.
135. P.W.1 Smt. Uma Prasanna Kumar the then Stenographer,NCTE, Bengaluru deposed in her evidence that she used to take dictation and making letter correspondence as per instructions of her senior officer and in addition to that she was entrusted to additional work of looking after the regulatory matters pertaining 70 C.C.No.17622/2017 to 6 districts of earlier integrated Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Andaman and Nicobar and also looking after RTI cases, correspondences as in their office there were shortage of staff. She further states that the accused No.1 society has applied for D.El.Ed., course recognition as per Ex.P.1 and 2. Ex.P.3 is the file maintained by her in her office and in the first page she prepared the note sheet which contains her signature as per Ex.P.3 (a) and also contains the signature of P.W.2 Regional Director as per Ex.P3 (b).
136. P.W.1 further deposed that in Ex.P.3 at page NO.80 i.e. downloaded copy of application submitted by the accused No.1 society on which P.W.2 made remarks that 'please put up' and based on the said remark, she prepared draft agenda and placed before the P.W.2 whereas P.W.2 placed the same before the committee for summary rejection as accused No.1 society has not submitted land records and accordingly committee rejected summarily. Further she deposed that on 01.10.2015 the accused No.1 society requested for reconsideration by stating that they have already submitted land records in another B.Ed. Course application and the said application is in page No.26 of Ex.P.3. She further states that again she prepared draft agenda and put up before Regional Director and the Regional Director after verifying the land records 71 C.C.No.17622/2017 submitted in B.Ed. Course application, they placed the records before the committee and the committee ordered that land records are available, reopen the case file and process.
137. P.W.1 further states that Ex.P.4 spiral binding book pertaining to Sree Sarada B.Ed. College, Anananthapura and it contains letter addressed to the Regional Director, NCTE, by the accused No.1 society for recognition of B.Ed. Course. She further states that Ex.P.5 file containing some original and some xerox copies pertaining to accused No.1 society has been maintained by her in her office and she prepared the note sheet in the said document which contains her signature and signature of P.W.2.
138. P.W.1 was subjected to cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 wherein it is elicited that the documents should be scrutinized by Upper Division Clerk. Further she states that Stenographer is equivalent to Upper Division Clerk. She further states that in their office they will not obtain the signature of the person who physically submits the hard copy of the application to the office. She further states that she don't know the person who submitted the application as well as documents on behalf of accused No.1 society. It is pertinent to note that in each paper of the Ex.P.1, 2 and 4 documents, the accused No.2 himself 72 C.C.No.17622/2017 self attested the documents as a Secretary of the accused No.1 society. It clearly shows that accused No.2 has applied for recognition of D.El.Ed., and B.Ed. Courses by submitting Ex.P.1, 2 and 4 documents. Further, the cross-examination made in respect to work to be done by the Lower Division Clerk and Upper Division Clerk and Section officer. It is pertinent to note that P.W.1 who written the note sheets in Ex.P.3 and 5 documents identified her signatures and the note sheets and specifically deposed about she was entrusted with additional work of looking after the regulatory matter pertaining to 6 Districts of earlier integrated Andhra Padesh, Karnataka, Andaman and Nicobar due to shortage of staff and also maintaining of Ex.P.3 and 5 files in their office and preparing note sheets in respect to the applications submitted by the accused No.1 society. Further, P.W.2 in her evidence specifically states about note sheets made by P.W.1. Hence, the evidence of the P.W.1 is corroborated by the documentary evidence.
139. P.W.2 Smt. Revathy Reddy, the then Regional Director, NCTE, Bengaluru deposed in her evidence deposed that Ex.P.1and 2 submitted by the Sree Sarada D.El.Ed. college and Ex.P.3 is the original file pertaining to Sree Sarada Educational Institution pertaining to D.Ed. Course maintained by their office. She Further deposed that Ex.P.3 contains online application dated 73 C.C.No.17622/2017 05.06.2015 and hard copy thereof dated 18.06.2015 for D.Ed. Course and initially Sree Sarada Educational Institution had not complied necessary conditions and they put up before the committee for preliminary rejection and committee summarily rejected. She further states that on 01.10.2015 accused No.1 institution gave letter stating that they have submitted land documents in another file pertaining to their college for B.Ed. Course and the same letter placed before the committee and committee passed order that land records are available in B.Ed. Course file, so file pertaining to D.Ed. Course may be reopened and accordingly they reopened and sent letters to educational institution and another for State Government.
140. P.W.2 was subjected to cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 wherein she states that she has not personally received the applications of accused No.1 society. She denied that she has not scrutinized the applications and documents submitted by the accused No.1 society. Further she states that in the year 2015-2016 P.W.1 was her personal assistant cum stenographer. Though, P.W.2 admits in her cross-examination that unless, until an office order is passed for entrusting the work, no official can be looking after any official work as per rules, but 74 C.C.No.17622/2017 there is no elicitation made to show that P.W.1 not prepared the note sheets in Ex.P.3 and 5 files.
141. The original letter addressed to Regional Director, SRC NCTE Bengaluru by the accused No.2 on behalf of accused No.1 society which was identified by the P.W.1 is available in Ex.P.3 at Sheet No.26. It reveals that the accused No.2 requested for consideration of B.Ed. And D.Ed. applications that they applied online for the course D.Ed., dated 05.06.2015 and submitted their copy on 18.06.2015 along with necessary documents as required under Regulation 2014 and they also applied for another course B.Ed. SRCAPP3401 and surprisingly, SRCAPP3400 application is rejected summarily and as the records submitted online and hard copy all are in order and processing fee, certified land documents and submission in 15 days as per and within Regulation 2014. This letter is received by the office of the Regional Director on 01.10.2015. Hence, this document also reveals that the accused No.2 has submitted the online applications and also submitted hard copies to the office of the Regional Director, SRC NCTE, Bengaluru for recognition of D.El.Ed. and B.Ed. Course under accused No.1 society.
142. Further, original two cash receipts dated 07.07.2015 for Rs.1,50,000/- each issued by NCTE, SRC, Bengaluru in favour of accused No.1 society is 75 C.C.No.17622/2017 available in Ex.P.3 and 5 files maintained by the SRC, NCTE, Bengaluru. It reveals that Rs.1,50,000/- paid through DD No.027412 dated 29.05.2015 in respect to SRCAPP3400 D.El.Ed., course and Rs.1,50,000/- paid through DD No.027413 dated 03.06.2015 in respect to SRCAPP3401 B.Ed., course.
143. Further the attested copy of the bankers cheque application form of SBI dated 22.05.2015 marked in Ex.P-1 and 2 reveals that Rs. 20,000/- paid in favour of Chairperson, Affiliation Committee, Hyderabad.
144. Further the attested copy of the bankers cheque application form of SBI dated 22.05.2015 marked in Ex.P-4 reveals that Rs. 20,000/- paid in favour of Chairperson, Affiliation Committee, Hyderabad.
145. In view of the above oral and documentary evidence, the prosecution has established that the accused No.2 has submitted the online applications on behalf of accused No.1 society to the Regional Director, SRC, NCTE, Bengaluru for obtaining formal recognition for D.El.Ed., and B.Ed. Courses on 29.05.2015 and 05.06.2015 respectively and he further submitted the hard copy of the applications to the NCTE on 18.06.2015.
76 C.C.No.17622/2017146. As per the prosecution case, the accused No.2 and 3 with dishonest and fraudulent intention and with the intention to cheat the NCTE and to obtain the formal recognition, furnished the details of the building in the applications as having multipurpose hall, seminar room, library, arts and crafts room etc. though such rooms were not available.
147. The attested copies of the on-line application marked in Ex.P-1 and 2 reveals that the application was submitted on 06.05.2015 at 05.07.29 p.m by the Secretary Sri. S. Sheshadri Reddy for recognition in the name and style of Sree Sarada D.El.Ed college at Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal, wherein the details of infrastructural facilities available for proposed program mentioned as built up area en-marked for the said program is 2558.179 square meters (27536.93 square feet) and also mentioned that 6 class rooms, 1 multipurpose hall, 1 multipurpose room, 1 seminar/tutorial room, 1 library, 1 principal room, 1 administrative room, 1 store room, 1 sports store room, 1 girls common room, 1 boys common room, 1 Art and crafts room, 1 music room, 1 SUPW room, 2 science labs, 1 psychology room, 1 E.T/ICT lab, 1 works shop room, 2 other rooms, 5 toilets for male, 5 toilets for female, 2 rooms for any other facilities are available. It is 77 C.C.No.17622/2017 pertinent to note that, the length and breadth and carpet area of these rooms mentioned in square meters.
148. The attested copies of the on-line application marked in Ex.P-4 reveals that the application was submitted on 06.05.2015 at 05.16.38 p.m by the Secretary Sri. S. Sheshadri Reddy for recognition in the name and style of Sree Sarada B.Ed college at Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal, wherein the details of infrastructural facilities available for proposed program mentioned as built up area en-marked for the said program is 2558.178 square meters (27536.93 square feet) and also mentioned that 6 class rooms, 1 multipurpose hall, 1 multipurpose room, 1 seminar/tutorial room, 1 library, 1 principal room, 1 administrative room, 1 store room, 1 sports store room, 1 girls common room, 1 boys common room, 1 Art and crafts room, 1 music room, 1 SUPW room, 2 science labs, 1 psychology lab, 1 E.T/ICT lab, 1 works shop room, 2 other rooms, 5 toilets for male, 5 toilets for female, 1 room for any other facilities are available. It is pertinent to note that, the length and breadth and carpet area of these rooms mentioned in square meters.
149. The above said online applications in Ex.P.1, 2 and 4 were self attested by the accused No.2 with the seal of accused No.1 society. Further, the original letter of the accused No.2 which was received by the office of 78 C.C.No.17622/2017 SRC-NCTE on 18.06.2015 marked in Ex.P.3 and 5 also enclosed with the copy of the online applications wherein also the above said specification of rooms and other infrastructural facilities mentioned with measurement.
150. The above documents clearly reveals that the accused No.2 to obtain the formal recognition, furnished the details of the building in the applications as having multipurpose hall, seminar room, library, arts and crafts room etc.
151. As per the prosecution case, based on the infrastructural and the instructional details furnished by accused No.2 and 3 in the applications, the NCTE processed the applications and deputed the visiting team to conduct inspection of Sree Sarada Education D.El.Ed. and B.Ed College and the visiting team conducted the inspection of the college on 11.02.2016.
152. Further the original note sheet marked in Ex.P-3 reveals that again SRC in its 293rd meeting held during 29th to 31st October 2016 considered the request the Institution for reconsideration of the decision of 291 st meeting and decided that the land document is available, reopen the case and process.
153. The copy of the decision taken in 293 rd meeting of SRC is marked in Ex.P-3 at sheet No. 27 to 30 79 C.C.No.17622/2017 which reveals that the decision has taken to reopen the case and process since land documents is available in respect to SRCAPP3400.
154. P.W.1 in her evidence states that she made observation in Ex.P.5 note sheet that Shri Sharada Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society has not submitted approved Building completion certificate (BCC) and Land Utilization Certificate (LUC) whereas, he only submitted Photocopy of encumbrance certificate but, original not produced and he has not submitted original blue print of the building plan and NOC Certificate not submitted and he only submitted photocopy of the same but, the same has not been approved by competent authority and he has not submitted original fixed deposit receipt (FDR). She further states that mentioning the above defects she prepared agenda and placed before Regional Director and based on Regional Director remarks, the committee passed an order dated 15/16-12-2015 that Shri Sharada Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society shall comply above said defects and also order to cause composite inspection on both D.L.Ed., and B.Ed., courses as mentioned at page No.95 of Ex.P.5.
155. P.W.1 further states that Ex.P-5 in which sheet No.95 contains that committee has opined that visiting team had to obtain building completion 80 C.C.No.17622/2017 certificate, encumbrance certificate, blue print of building plan, original fixed deposit receipt and related land documents and building documents from Sharada Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society for obtaining permission to B.Ed., and DL.Ed. and the committee also suggested the visiting team to cause composite inspection regarding B.Ed., and DL.Ed., colleges.
156. P.W.2 in her evidence states that on 08.12.2015, they scrutinized the documents and prepared the agenda with remarks stating that Building Completion Certificate, Land Use Certificate and Encumbrance Certificate were not produced and building plan was not legible and approved and built up area for two courses are inadequate that is to say they only shown built up area 27,536.93 square feet. She further states that in fact, for composite two programs built up area should be 3,000 square meters and FD receipts were not submitted and with these remarks, she put up the file before committee, whereas committee has ordered as shown in sheet No.48 & 49 of Ex.P-3. She further states that committee ordered to visiting team to cause spot inspection.
157. The original scrutiny of application for causing inspection in respect to new recognitions 2016-17 at sheet No. 255 and 256 is marked in Ex.P-3 which reveals 81 C.C.No.17622/2017 that the accused No. 2 who is the correspondent/Secretary of the accused No. 1 society has applied for B.Ed(SRCAPP3401) and D.El.Ed (SRCAPP3400) courses under the accused No. 1 society at Akuledu village by submitting D.D No. 027412 and 027413 for Rs. 1,50,000/- each and also submitted the NOC issued by the Registrar, Sri. Krishnadevaraya University and NOC issued by the Director SCERT and also submitted photocopy of the land document and photocopy of the building plan, affidavit. Further it is noticed that in the said documents, the building plan is not approved and building completion certificate and fixed deposit not submitted. After scrutiny, remarks made by the PW-1 PA/Steno as under:
i. Building completion certificate approved by the Government Engineer is not submitted. ii. LUC is not submitted.
iii.Photocopy of E.C is submitted. Original EC is not submitted.
iv. The original Blue Print of the building plan is not submitted.
v. Original FDR not submitted.
vi. Built up area is less for offering both B.Ed and D.El.Ed courses, Photocopy of Building plan is not approved by the competent authority.
158. Further, the original visit schedule at sheet No. 257 in Ex.P-3 reveals that Sri. C. Jayaprakash Murthy and Smt. C. Naseema are nominated as visiting 82 C.C.No.17622/2017 team members to visit the Sree Sarada D.El.Ed college as per the decision of 296th meeting of SRC.
159. The copy of the decision taken in 296 th meeting of SRC dated 15th and 16th December 2015 is available in sheet No. 39 to 48 of Ex.P-3 which reveals that remarks made in the said meeting in respect to application I.D No. SRCAPP3400 that building plan not legible and approved, BCC, EC, original FDRs not submitted and built up area as per building plan is individual for the two programs. Further in sheet No. 48, the SRC committee has passed the order in respect to both application I.D No. SRCAPP3400 and SRCAPP3401 that (1). Building completion certificate and Encumbrance Certificate to be submitted, (2) Blue Print of the building plan to be submitted, (3) Built up area inadequate for two programs, (4) Original fixed deposit receipts to be submitted, (5) Ask VT to obtain relevant land and building documents, (6) Cause composite inspection.
160. In Ex.P-3, the original note sheet of SRC- NCTE at sheet No. 258 to 260 in Ex.P-3 which reveals that the SRC in its 296th meeting held during 15th and 16th December 2015 has considered the matter, documents submitted by the Institution for B.Ed and D.El.Ed along with hard copy of the application and decided that (1). Building completion certificate and 83 C.C.No.17622/2017 Encumbrance Certificate to be submitted, (2) Blue Print of the building plan to be submitted, (3) Built up area inadequate for two programs, (4) Original fixed deposit receipts to be submitted, (5) Ask VT to obtain relevant land and building documents, (6) Cause composite inspection. Further it is mentioned that, a composite inspection was conducted on 11.02.2016 and visiting team report is received by this office on 15.02.2016 and the land documents, land use certificate, building completion certificate, Encumbrance Certificate are submitted and photocopy of the building plan submitted, fixed deposit receipt not submitted and further remarks of visiting team on deficiencies are mentioned that (1). Blue Print of the building plan to be submitted and remarks made that the Institution photocopy of the building plan is submitted and it is not approved by the competent authority, (2). Built up area inadequate for two programs and remarks made that BCC dated 25.08.2015 the built up area is 10304 is submitted and draft agenda is prepared and put up for perusal and further order. Further in this original proceedings, it is mentioned that SRC in its 304th meeting held during 19th and 20th February 2016 considered the visiting team report and other relevant documents and decided that 'Reply considered. The C.D received with the reply does not show removal of the asbestos sheets, (1). Issue LOI for D.El.Ed(1 Unit), (2). FDRs in joint account should be 84 C.C.No.17622/2017 furnished, (3). Only if these are given on or before 03.03.2016, can issue formal recognition with effect from 2016-17 academic year is possible. After getting proof of removal of asbestos sheets duly certified by the engineer approving the BCC'.
161. The original scrutiny of application for causing inspection in respect to new recognitions 2016-17 at sheet No. 343 and 344 is marked in Ex.P-5 which reveals that the accused No. 2 who is the correspondent/Secretary of the accused No. 1 society has applied for B.Ed(SRCAPP3401) and D.El.Ed (SRCAPP3400) courses under the accused No. 1 society at Akuledu village by submitting D.D No. 027412 and 027413 for Rs. 1,50,000/- each and also submitted the NOC issued by the Registrar, Sri. Krishnadevaraya University and NOC issued by the Director SCERT and also submitted photocopy of the land document and photocopy of the building plan, affidavit. Further it is noticed that in the said documents, the building completion certificate and fixed deposit not submitted. After scrutiny, remarks made by the PW-1 PA/Steno as under:
(i) Building completion certificate approved by the Government Engineer is not submitted.
(ii) LUC is not submitted.
(iii) Photocopy of E.C is submitted. Original EC is not submitted.85 C.C.No.17622/2017
(iv) The original Blue Print of the building plan is not submitted.
(v) Original FDR not submitted.
(vi) Photocopy of the building plan is not approved by the competent authority.
162. Further, remarks made in the above said document that the building plan is not legible and not approved, building completion certificate, E.C, original FDRs are not submitted, built up area as per the building plan is inadequate for the two programs.
163. Ex.P-9 is copy of the decision of 296th meeting of SRC- NCTE held on 15th to 16th December 2015 wherein Serial No. 218 and 219 the decision taken in respect to Sree Sarada D.El.Ed college and B.Ed college respectively as under:
1. Building Completion Certificate and Encumbrance Certificate to be submitted.
2. Blue print of the building plan to be submitted.
3. Built up area inadequate for 2 programmes.
4. Original fixed deposit receipts to be submitted.
5. Ask VT to obtain relevant land and building documents.
6. Cause composite inspection.
164. Ex.P.9 marked subject to objection as it contains copies. On perusal of the same, the decision of 296th meeting of SRC-NCTE typed and signed by the chairman and members and it is a copy the decision of SRC-NCTE.
86 C.C.No.17622/2017165. Further, the original visit schedule at sheet No. 345 marked in Ex.P-5 reveals that Sri. C. Jayaprakash Murthy and Smt. C. Naseema are nominated as visiting team members to visit the Sree Sarada D.El.Ed college as per the decision of 296th meeting of SRC.
166. The copy of the decision taken in 296th meeting of SRC dated 15th and 16th December 2015 is available in sheet No. 86 to 95 of Ex.P-5 which reveals that remarks made in the said meeting in respect to application I.D No. SRCAPP3401 that building plan not legible and approved, BCC, EC, original FDRs not submitted and built up area as per building plan is individual for the two programs. Further in sheet No. 95, the SRC committee has passed the order in respect to both application I.D No. SRCAPP3400 and SRCAPP3401 that (1). Building completion certificate and Encumbrance Certificate to be submitted, (2) Blue Print of the building plan to be submitted, (3) Built up area inadequate for two programs, (4) Original fixed deposit receipts to be submitted, (5) Ask VT to obtain relevant land and building documents, (6) Cause composite inspection.
167. The original note sheet of SRC-NCTE at sheet No. 346 and 347 marked in Ex.P-5 which reveals that 87 C.C.No.17622/2017 the SRC in its 296th meeting held during 15th and 16th December 2015 has considered the matter, documents submitted by the Institution for B.Ed and D.El.Ed along with hard copy of the application and decided that (1). Building completion certificate and Encumbrance Certificate to be submitted, (2) Blue Print of the building plan to be submitted, (3) Built up area inadequate for two programs, (4) Original fixed deposit receipts to be submitted, (5) Ask VT to obtain relevant land and building documents, (6) Cause composite inspection. Further it is mentioned that, a composite inspection was conducted on 11.02.2016 and visiting team report is received by this office on 15.02.2016 and the land documents, land use certificate, building completion certificate, Encumbrance Certificate are submitted and photocopy of the building plan submitted, fixed deposit receipt not submitted and further remarks of visiting team on deficiencies are mentioned that (1). Blue Print of the building plan to be submitted and remarks made that the Institution photocopy of the building plan is submitted and it is not approved by the competent authority, (2). Built up area inadequate for two programs and remarks made that BCC dated 25.08.2015 the built up area is 10304 is submitted and draft agenda is prepared and put up for perusal and further order. Further in this original note sheet, it is mentioned that SRC in its 304th meeting held during 19th and 20th 88 C.C.No.17622/2017 February 2016 considered the visiting team report and other relevant documents and decided that 'Reply considered. The C.D received with the reply does not show removal of the asbestos sheets, (1). Issue LOI for B.Ed(1 Unit), (2). FDRs in joint account should be furnished, (3). Only if these are given on or before 03.03.2016, can issue formal recognition with effect from 2016-17 academic year is possible. After getting proof of removal of asbestos sheets duly certified by the engineer approving the BCC'.
168. As per the above documents, the SRC in its 296th meeting has considered the applications and documents submitted by the accused No.1 society and decided that Building completion certificate and Encumbrance Certificate to be submitted, Blue Print of the building plan to be submitted, Built up area inadequate for two programs, Original fixed deposit receipts to be submitted, Ask VT to obtain relevant land and building documents, Cause composite inspection. Hence, the prosecution has proved that based on the applications and documents furnished by the accused No.2, the SRC processed the applications and deputed the visiting team consisting of Sri. C. Jayaprakash Murthy and Smt. C. Naseema to conduct inspection of accused No.1 society.
89 C.C.No.17622/2017169. As per the prosecution case, the visiting team conducted the inspection of accused No.1 college on 11.02.2016 and in pursuance of criminal conspiracy the accused No.2 and 3 and in order to cheat the NCTE forged and created Land Conversion Proceedings dated 15.11.2015 and the Building Completion Certificate dated 25.08.2015 and the accused No.2 and 3 have submitted these documents to the visiting team.
170. The burden is on the prosecution to establish that the accused No.2 and 3 have forged and created Land Conversion Proceedings dated 15.11.2015 and the Building Completion Certificate dated 25.08.2015 and submitted to the visiting team. Firstly, the prosecution has to prove that these documents have been submitted by the accused No.2 and 3 to the visiting team and secondly these documents were forged by the accused No.2 and 3.
171. P.W.1 in her evidence states that the visiting team i.e., Mr. C. Jayaprakash Murthy and Miss. Naseema were proposed to visit and as per proposal, Mr. C. Jayaprakash Murthy and K. Anandan instead of Miss. Naseema visited B.Ed., and DL.Ed., colleges.
172. P.W.3 Sri. K. Anandan, Rtd., Professor in his evidences states that he was also member of visiting 90 C.C.No.17622/2017 team of NCTE for Teacher's Education Institution and as a member of visiting team, the visiting team should visit the institution to ascertain infrastructure, faculty and facilities as specified under rules and regulations prescribed by NCTE and after visiting any institution, they used to submit report. He further states that in the year 2016, he received phone call from NCTE regarding the fact that he has been nominated as a one of the visiting team members to conduct inspection in Shardha Educational Institution in Ananthapura District, Andhra Pradesh and also received e-mail to that effect. He further states that after 2-3 days, he visited to Sharadha Educational Institution in the month of February 2016 along with another visiting team member namely Jayaprakash Murthy and they inspected the premises regarding infrastructure and other facilities as prescribed by NCTE along with the office bearers of Sharadha Educational Society namely Sri. Obalapathy (accused No.3) and other office bearers.
173. P.W.3 further states that during their visit, they verified the documents pertaining to infrastructure of Sharadha Institutional Society and also facilities and whatever they found there, they recorded the same and prepared report and they also made videographs and taken photographs by the aid of office bearers of the Sharadha Institutional Society. Further, P.W.3 identified 91 C.C.No.17622/2017 the visiting team report prepared by himself and Jayaprakash Murthy as per Ex.P.5 (g).
174. P.W.3 in his evidence states that during the time of their visit, the office bearers of Sharadha Institutional Society namely Obalapathy (accused No.3) and others had given building plan, property documents and teaching aid materials like computers and other peripherals and the documents submitted by office bearers are attested by themselves and while preparing report, they also gone through with said documents. He further states that Ex.P-5(f) building plan was submitted by office bearers of Sharadha Institutional Society at the time of their visit.
175. P.W.3 further states that during their visit, they also inspected labs and teaching rooms etc and at that time, they satisfied regarding facilities for some extent and they also orally gave suggestions to them, whereas office bearers submitted that they are going to construct further buildings means extension of buildings for further courses like B.A., B.Ed., M.A., B.Sc., etc., and thereafter, they prepared their visiting team report and also annexed a CD to said report regarding videograph done at the time of their inspection. He further states that Ex.P.19 to 26 photographs taken at the time of 92 C.C.No.17622/2017 their visit and same were given to them and they adopted the same in their report.
176. P.W.3 further states that according to their report Ex.P-5(g), built up area was totally 7455 Square feet and as per regulations, built up area should be 2000 and add square meters and the office bearers of Sharadha Educational Society submitted that they are going to complete uncompleted structures which are already half built up for some extent. He further states that during their visit, they also found two floor constructed building, but according to building plan, it should have been three floors and they also found on the spot some temporary shed with asbestos roofing, they advised them to remove the said shed, because the office bearers informed them that shed has been using for storing construction materials and others for construction purpose. He further states that on considering progress of construction of the building and assurance given by the office bearers of Sharadha Educational Society, they recommended.
177. P.W.1 in her evidence states that as per the order passed by the committee Visiting Team Members submitted their report which is at page No.152 to 160 in Ex.P.5 and in the said report it is mentioned that built up area for composite courses i.e., D.L.Ed. and B.Ed. is only 7445 however, though in the report they have not 93 C.C.No.17622/2017 mentioned either Square Feet or square meters, but, it can be deemed that i.e., 7,445 square feet because prescribed built of the area should be 3,000 square meter.
178. P.W.1 further deposed that the visiting team submitted their report as reflected in sheet No.152 to 160 of Ex.P-5 and according to visiting team report, they found built up area was only 7445 square feet, but actual prescribed measurement was 3000 square meters. She further states that on 15.02.2016, in sheet No.9 of Ex.P-5, she prepared note sheet stating that above said institution only submitted photo copy of building plan, but same is not approved by competent authority. Further, she states that she also noted that original fixed deposit receipt has not been submitted by institution and on the very same day, she also prepared meeting agenda and placed before the committee, the same is reflected in sheet No.161 & 162 of Ex.P-5.
179. P.W.1 further states that visiting team also made remarks that Shri Sharada Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society has only submitted photocopy of building plan which is not approved by competent authority and in the building completion certificate built up area is shown as only 10304 as reflected in at page No.346 in Ex.P.5. P.W.1 she states that the institution also submitted building 94 C.C.No.17622/2017 completion certificate dated 25.08.2015, wherein built up area is shown as 10304 (without mentioning either in feet of meters).
180. P.W.2 deposed in her evidence that the visiting team after spot inspection submitted the report to committee, whereas committee after scrutinizing the visiting team report and documents, ordered for show cause notice for compliance of further deficiencies.
181. As per original note sheet in Ex.P.3 and 5, the visiting team has conducted the inspection of accused No.1 Sree Sarada Educational institution on 11.02.2016 and visiting team report received by the office on 15.02.2016 and it is also mentioned that the land documents, land use certificate, building completion certificate, Encumbrance Certificate and photocopy of the building plan are submitted along with visiting team report, but fixed deposit receipt not submitted.
182. Further in Ex.P.3 and 5 note sheets, remarks of visiting team on deficiencies are mentioned as under ;
Deficiencies Remarks Blue Print of the building The Institution photocopy plan to be submitted of the building plan is submitted and it is not approved by the competent authority.
Built up area inadequate BCC dated 25.08.2015 the 95 C.C.No.17622/2017 for two programs built up area is 10304 is submitted
183. According to Ex.P.3 and 5 note sheets, the land documents, land use certificate, building completion certificate, Encumbrance Certificate and photocopy of the building plan are submitted to the visiting team.
184. Ex.P-5(g) is the original Visiting Team report on inspection of Institutions. It reveals that this report submitted by the Visiting Team member i.e Sri. C. Jayaprakash Murthy and Sri. K. Anandan(PW-3) in respect to visiting of the Sree Sarada D.El.ED and B.Ed College of Education, Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal, Anantapuram District and date of inspection mentioned as 11.02.2016. Further, it is mentioned that original approved building plan verified and Municipal licensed surveyor approved the building plan and total proposed area of construction is 27536.93 square feet and further building completion certificate dated 26.08.2015 issued by the Mandal Engineering Officer Sri. Y. Sreedhar, Assistant Engineer, Singanamala was issued the said document and total built up area is 7445 square feet and area of multipurpose hall is 2234.50 square feet, RCC roofing in Sy. No. 241/2 of Akuledu village. Further, the measurement of the class room, Multipurpose hall, Library, ICT resource center etc., also 96 C.C.No.17622/2017 mentioned in square feet. Further, built up area for B.Ed and D.El.Ed mentioned as 7445 square feet. The overall assessment of the Institution is mentioned by the Visiting Team Members with their signatures [Ex.P-5(h) and (k)] as under:
'The management has provided sufficient space for required classrooms, different labs, multipurpose hall, staff room etc. It has provided equipments in different labs and sports and games room.
Sufficient number of books are available in the library. It has provided sanitary facility and five fire extinguisher facility. All evidences ensures their preparation to accommodate the B.Ed and D.El.Ed programs'.
185. Further, in Ex.P-5(g) Visiting Team Report, separate undertakings given by the PW-3 Sri. K. Anandan and Sri. Jayaprakash Murthy that, they have actually visited the Institution and videograph has been done in the Institution on 11.02.2016 at 04.30 p.m and they signed the undertakings as per Ex.P-5(i) and Ex.P-
5(l) respectively. Further in the said document, both visiting team members i.e., PW-3 and Sri. Jayaprakash Murthy have made the comments that the total built up area, multipurpose hall, furnitures, Labs/resources rooms, seating capacity in the library are adequate and further they made remarks with their signatures [Ex.P- 5(j) and (m)] as under:
97 C.C.No.17622/2017"The Institution is located in rural area. The Management has submitted building completion certificate and blue print certificate. The Management has provided sufficient space for infrastructural facilities to run both B.Ed and D.El.Ed programs".
186. As per Ex.P.5 (g) visiting team report, the management has submitted the building completion certificate and blue print certificate.
187. Further, as per the evidence of P.W.3 visiting team member also, the office bearers of the accused No.1 society namely accused No.3 and others had given building plan, property documents which were attested by the office bearers. Further, P.W.3 identified Ex.P.5 (f) building plan submitted by the office bearers of the accused No.1 society during his visit.
188. Ex.P-5(f) is the self attested copy of the building plan. It reveals that the said building plan prepared by Sri. B. Thirupal i.e PW-9(CW-11). Further, it contains original seal of the accused No.1 Society and signature of the accused No. 2.
189. P.W.3 was subjected to cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 wherein he specifically denied that office bearers of Sree Sarada Educational society have not submitted any documents at the time of his visit. Further, P.W.3 admitted that the 98 C.C.No.17622/2017 buildings were not completed at the time of his visit and building completion certificate was not issued as the buildings were not completed. It is pertinent to note that though P.W.3 admitted in his cross-examination that building completion certificate was not issued as the buildings were not completed, but it is not elicited that no building completion certificate submitted by the accused No.1 society during his visit. According to the Ex.P.5 (g) original visiting team report and also Ex.P.3 and 5 original note sheets, the management of accused No.1 society has submitted building completion certificate and blue print certificate.
190. Further, P.W.3 admitted the suggestions made by the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 in his cross- examination that he has shown the measurement less than regularization in his report and he has not measured the measurement of class room at the time of his visit and he has submitted report to the Director after completing the inspection. These suggestions shows that the accused No.1 and 2 indirectly admitted the inspection of the visiting team and submitting of report after inspection.
191. P.W.3 was subjected to cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.3 wherein he admits that he has no documents to show that accused No.3 was the office bearer of accused No.1 society. He denied 99 C.C.No.17622/2017 that accused No.3 has not submitted any documents before him. Though P.W.3 admitted that no documents to show that accused No.3 was the office bearer of accused No.1 society, but he clearly deposed about presence of accused No.3 at the time of inspection and submission of the documents. It clearly shows that the presence of accused No.3 in the premises of accused No.1 institution while inspection by the visiting team and submission of the documents to the visiting team.
192. Ex.P-19 to 26 are the photographs taken at the time of inspection of the visiting team appointed by the SRC. These photographs are marked subject to objection as the negative or original memory card are not produced. These photographs are identified by the PW-3 as it was taken at the time of their visit to the accused No. 1 Institution with the aid of office bearers of accused No. society. In Ex.P-19, 23 to 25 photographs, the accused No. 2 is found.
193. As per the evidence of P.W.3, they made videograph and taken photograph by the aid of officer bearers of accused No.1 society and Ex.P.19 to 26 photographs taken at the time of their visit and same were given to them and they enclosed the same to their report. According to the evidence of P.W.3, these photographs taken by the aid of office bearers of the accused No.1 society and these photographs given to 100 C.C.No.17622/2017 them and they enclosed the same to their report. If the photographs were taken by the office bearers of accused No.1 society and handed over the same to the visiting team members, then the negatives or original memory card can not be in the custody of the visiting team members to produce the same before the Court since it is in the custody of the office bearers of accused No.1 society. When the negatives and original memory card are not in the possession of the P.W.3, then the question of producing the same by the P.W.3 does not arise. Admittedly the said photographs are secondary evidence.
194. As per Section 65 (a) of the Indian Evidence Act, secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved or of any person out of reach, or not subject to, the process of the Court or of any person legally bound to produce it and when after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it and in case
(a), any secondary evidence of the contents of the documents is admissible.
195. Instant case as discussed above, Ex.P.19 to 26 photographs taken by the office bearers of the accused No.1 society and photographs handed over to the P.W.3, 101 C.C.No.17622/2017 then the primary evidence i.e. negative or original memory card is appears to be in the possession and power of the accused persons against whom these photographs sought to be proved. Hence, the secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible as per Section 65 (a) of the Evidence Act. Hence, there is no substance in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2.
196. In view of the above oral and documentary evidence, the prosecution has established that the P.W.3 and Sri. Jayaprakash Murthy who are the visiting team members of the NCTE, visited the accused No.1 institution on 11.02.2016 and inspected the institution and submitted report as per Ex.P.5 (g) by stating built- up area was totally 7455 square feet and during their visit, the accused No.3 and other office bearers of accused No.1 institution submitted the Ex.P.5 (f) self attested copy of building plan, land documents, land use certificate, building completion certificate dated 25.08.2015 and encumbrance certificate to the visiting team members and they enclosed the same to their report.
197. As per the remarks made in the original note sheets marked in Ex.P.3 and 5, the institution has submitted the photo copy of the building plan which is not approved by the competent authority and according 102 C.C.No.17622/2017 to building completion certificate dated 25.08.2015 the built-up area is 10304 which is inadequate for 2 programs. On perusal of the Ex.P.5 (f), it is the self attested copy of building plan submitted by the accused No.2 and the same is not approved by the competent authority.
198. P.W.1 in her evidence states that on 15.02.2016, in sheet No.9 of Ex.P-5, she prepared note sheet stating that above said institution only submitted photo copy of building plan, but same is not approved by competent authority and the institution also submitted building completion certificate dated 25.08.2015, wherein built up area is shown as 10304 without mentioning either in feet of meters. Further, she states that, she also noted that original fixed deposit receipt has not been submitted by institution and on the very same day, she prepared meeting agenda and placed before the committee, the same is reflected in sheet No.161 & 162 of Ex.P-5.
199. As per the prosecution case, based on the documents namely the building plan and the building completion certificate submitted by accused No.2 to the visiting team, the Southern Regional Committee of the NCTE in its meeting held on 15.02.2016 has decided that show cause notice be issued to accused No.1 for the reasons that the built up area was not adequate for two 103 C.C.No.17622/2017 programs, the building plan was not approved by the competent authority and the CD video-graphed during inspection showed asbestos roof building.
200. P.W.1 in her evidence states that later, they web hosted the decision of the committee meeting in their official website. P.W.2 in her evidence states that the committee after scrutinizing the visiting team report and documents, passed order for issuance of show cause notice for compliance of further deficiencies.
201. Ex.P-10 and Ex.P-15 are the copies of the decision of 303rd meeting of SRC-NCTE held on 15th February 2016 wherein Serial No.27 the decision taken in respect to Sree Sarada D.El.Ed and B.Ed college as under:
1. Built up area is not adequate for 2 programs.
2. BP not approved by competent authority.
3. CD shows Asbestos roofing building.
4. Issue SCN accordingly.
202. Ex.P.10 and 15 are marked subject to objection as they are copies of the decision of SRC-NCTE. But, as per original note sheet marked in Ex.P.3 and 5, draft agenda prepared that photocopy of the building plan submitted by the institution is not approved by the competent authority and built up area inadequate for 2 programs as per building completion certificate 104 C.C.No.17622/2017 submitted by the institution. Further, P.W.2 in her evidence specifically deposed about the issuance of show cause notice to the accused No.1 society for compliance of deficiencies. Nothing has been elicited in her cross- examination to disbelieve her version. Though Ex.P.10 and 15 are the copies of the decision of the 303 rd meeting of SRC-NCTE, but P.W.2 categorically deposed about issuance of show cause notice for compliance of deficiencies. Further, as per Ex.P.5 (c) original letter dated 17.02.2016 written by the accused No.2 to the Regional Director for furnishing the documents i.e. built- up area is adequate to running 2 programs and building plan is approved by the Panchayath Secretary. It shows that after issuance of show cause notice by the NCTE, the accused No.2 submitted the documents for compliance. Hence, considering the above evidence, it can be concluded that the SRC-NCTE in its 303 rd meeting dated 15.02.2016 decided to issue show cause notice for compliance of deficiencies noted in Ex.P.3 and 5 note sheets.
203. As per the prosecution case, with the fraudulent and dishonest intention of circumventing the deficiencies pointed out by the SRC-NCTE and in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, the accused No.2 and 3 submitted another forged building plan to the NCTE by a letter dated 17.02.2016 and made the SRC, NCTE to 105 C.C.No.17622/2017 believe that the required built up area was available and thereby fraudulently and dishonestly induced the SRC, NCTE to issue the Letter of Intent dated 20.02.2016.
204. P.W.1 in her evidence states that on seeing the decision of the committee which was web hosted, the Sharadha Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society has submitted a report by stating that they are submitting building plan approved by Panchayath and stated that built up area is sufficient and Asbestos Roofing, same is reflected in sheet No.165 of Ex.P-5 and in fact, above said institution had submitted only photo copy bearing the seal and signature of Grama Panchayath.
205. P.W.2 in her evidence states that in response to their show cause notice, Sri Sharadha Educational Society has given Ex.P.5(c) letter dated 17.02.2016 and Ex.P.5(d) building plan and in the said letter, the society stated that built up area is adequate, building plan is approved by panchayath and asbestos roofing sheet is removed.
206. Ex.P-5(c) is the original letter dated 17.02.2016 and it reveals that the accused No. 2 being a Secretary of accused No. 1 Society has written a letter to the Regional Director, NCTE, Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru wherein he states that they are enclosing adequate proof 106 C.C.No.17622/2017 documents for the requirements (1). Built up area is adequate for running and programs for B.Ed building 'A' block 17061.00 Sq. ft and for D.El.Ed 'B' block 18263.87 Sq.ft, (2). BP is approved by the concern authority which Panchayath Secretary, (3). Asbestos roofing is removed. Further, the enclosures mentioned as Blue Print(xerox), Blue Print approved by the concerned authority and original C.D.
207. Ex.P-5(d) is the copy of the blue print of building plan which was approved by the Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayath, Singanamala (Mdl.). It reveals that the said building plan prepared by Sri. B. Thirupal i.e PW-9(CW-11). Further, it contains the seal and signature of the Panchayath Secretary, Akuledu village, Singanamala (Mdl.) and also seal of the accused No. 1 Society and signature of the accused No.
2.
208. In view of the above oral and documentary evidence, it clearly shows that the accused No.2 has written a letter in Ex.P.5 (c) to the Regional Director of NCTE and submitted the Ex.P.5 (d) blue print of building plan approved by the Panchayath Secretary, Akuledu village to show that built-up area is adequate for running for two programs and building plan is approved by the concerned authority.
107 C.C.No.17622/2017209. As per the prosecution case, the NCTE issued the letter of intent subject to the submission of proof of removal of the asbestos sheets duly certified by the engineer approving the building completion certificate and submission of the fixed deposit receipts in the joint name of the institution and the Regional Director, NCTE towards the endowment fund and the reserve fund of Rs.5.00 lakhs and Rs.7.00 lakhs respectively, per progamme for a period of 5 years.
210. P.W.1 in her evidence states that on 19/20.02.2016, as per meeting No.304, the committee decided to issue Letter Of Intent (LOI) to Sharadha Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society to get permission to B.Ed., DL.Ed., colleges on the conditions that institution should submit original fixed deposit receipt in joint account should be furnish on or before 03.03.2016 and also committee directed the institution to remove asbestos roof sheets and also submit building completion certificate approved by the Engineer, same is reflected in sheet No.166 & 167 of Ex.P-5 and the said Letter Of Intent is in sheet No.168 of Ex.P-5 and the said Letter Of Intent is approved by their Regional Director Smt. Revathi Reddy and the Letter Of Intent permitting for the course of DL.Ed. is in sheet No.223 & 224 of Ex.P-3 approved by above said Smt. 108 C.C.No.17622/2017 Revathi Reddy and the above said Letter Of Intent sent to said institution.
211. P.W.2 She further states that later, they put up the same documents before committee, whereas after scrutinizing the documents, the committee has passed an order to issue Letter Of Intent subject to condition that proof of removal of asbestos sheet as reflected in page No.166 & 167 of Ex.P-5 and accordingly, they issued Letter Of Intent to Sri Sharadha Educational Society as shown in page No.168 of Ex.P-5 and page No.52 of Ex.P-3.
212. Ex.P-3(e) is the copy of the order dated 20.02.2016 of the Regional Director, NCTE for issuance of Letter of Intent for grant of recognition/permission for D.El.Ed course under clause 7(9) of NCTE Regulation 2014 to the accused No.1 institution.
213. Ex.P-5(e) is the copy of the order dated 20.02.2016 of the Regional Director, NCTE for issuance of Letter of Intent for grant of recognition/permission for B.Ed course under clause 7(9) of NCTE Regulation 2014 to the accused No.1 institution.
214. Ex.P-11 is copy of the decision of 304 th meeting of SRC-NCTE held on 19 th and 20th February 109 C.C.No.17622/2017 2016 wherein Serial No. 69 the decision taken in respect to Sree Sarada D.El.Ed and B.Ed college as under:
1. Reply considered. The CD received with the reply does not show removal of the asbestos sheets.
1. Issue LOI for D.El.Ed (1 Unit).
2. FDRs in joint account should be furnished.
3. Only if these are given on or before 03.03.2016 can issue of formal recognition w.e.f 2016-17 academic year be possible.
After getting proof of removal of asbestos sheets duly certified by the engineer approving the BCC.
215. Ex.P.11 copy of the decision of 304th meeting of SRC-NCTE was marked to subject to objection as it is a copy. Though Ex.P.11 is a copy of the decision of the meeting, but in original note sheet marked in Ex.P.3 and 5 the above decision of the 304th meeting of SRC-NCTE is extracted as committee decided to issue LOI for B.Ed., and D.El.Ed. subject to production of FDRs and removal of asbestos sheets. Further, Ex.P.3 (e) and Ex.P.5 (e) also reveals that Letter Of Intent for grant of recognition issued by the P.W.2.
216. In view of the above oral and documentary evidence, it shows that P.W.2 issued Ex.P.3 (e) and Ex.P.5 (e) Letter of Intent for grant of recognition for D.El.Ed., and B.Ed. Courses to the accused No.1 institution as per the decision of the 304 th meeting of SRC-NCTE.
110 C.C.No.17622/2017217. As per the prosecution case, accused No.2 and 3 pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, did not remove the asbestos sheets from the building and did not produce the FDRs towards the endowment fund and the reserve fund, but falsely induced the NCTE and fraudulently obtained the formal recognition orders for the D.El.Ed. and the B.Ed courses, on the last date fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India i.e. 02.05.2016.
218. P.W.1 in her evidence states that the Letter Of Intent permitting for the course of DL.Ed., is in sheet No.223 & 224 of Ex.P-3 approved by Smt. Revathi Reddy and the above said Letter Of Intent sent to said institution and in Ex.P-3, at sheet No.241 is the letter dated 17.03.2016 submitted by the Secretary of institution and the same was a reply to the Letter of Intent and the said letter dated 17.03.2016 reveals that approved staff list was issued by Selection Committee, SCERT, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and the said document also contains selection list of staff and affidavits of the said staffs. She further states that she placed the above said documents before the committee with a note that Service Certificate of Principal as well as Lecturers were not furnished and original fixed deposit receipts in joint account were also not furnished and College website was not functioning as per sheet No.13 of Ex.P-3.
111 C.C.No.17622/2017219. Further, P.W.1 states that in Ex.P-5 at sheet No.11, she made a note on 25.04.2016 that though Institution received Letter of Intent, but staff list was not uploaded in the website and affidavits of the staffs were also not uploaded, fixed deposit receipts were not furnished, whereas the institution has furnished service certificate of the principal, who was having only experience of one year and eight months, but as per norms, experience for principal should be more than five years and the said note made by her has been approved by their Regional Director.
220. P.W.1 further states that the committee in 312th meeting held on 28/29.04.2016 has decided to issue show cause notice to institution with respect to B.Ed., course stating that in order to run B.Ed., course, the institution was supposed to appoint Assistant Professors for the subjects of Sociology and Philosophy and also for the Fine Arts and committee also decided to club the said B.Ed., file to DL.Ed., files of the institution.
221. P.W.2 further states that after submission of staff requirement report by society, committee has ordered to issue Formal Recognition after receiving FDR and accordingly, after receiving FDRs, they issued Formal Recognition. She further states that she is not aware of the fact whether accused society had complied with the conditions specified in Letter of Intent or not 112 C.C.No.17622/2017 before issuing formal recognition and Ex.P.3 and 5 files do not reflect regarding receiving of FDRs for Rs. 7,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- each from accused society. She further states that Ex.P-3 file contains letter dated 17.03.2016 submitted by Secretary of accused institution regarding approved staff list selected by committee, appointed by SCERT, Hyderabad at page No.241 and along with said letter, the society also submitted appointment of faculty in the institution as per document at sheet No.239 of Ex.P-3 and she put up the same before committee.
222. P.W.2 further states that Ex.P-5 file at sheet No.8 discloses that P.W.1 had made some note sheet specifying the deficiencies that the society has not uploaded staff list and affidavit has not uploaded and FDRs are not submitted, hence she put up the note sheet before the committee. P.W.2 further states that the SRC-NCTE in its meeting No.312 decided to issue notice to society to comply the deficiencies. She further states that in response to their notice, accused society given their reply and same was put up before the committee as per sheet No.9 of Ex.P-5. She further states that according to 2014 regulations, for the post of Principal, his experience should be minimum 8 years, whereas, the society has given service certificate of one K. Prathap Reddy, Principal 113 C.C.No.17622/2017 and his experience was shown as 1 year 8 months and the qualification of said Principal is mentioned as M.A., in psychology, M.Ed., and P.H.D. She further states that in Ex.P-5, at page No.297, the accused society also submitted service certificate of above said K. Prathap Reddy as he worked in St. Joseph College as a Lecturer for the period from 01.02.2009 to 30.10.2015.
223. PW-2 in her evidence states that whenever the committee makes any observation and instruct her to issue show cause notices to the accused society for compliance, she used to issue show cause notices to the said society and when the society submits any documents or reports in response to their show cause notices, she used to put up the same before committee and ultimately, the committee on going through voluminous documents as shown in Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-5 files, the committee has decided to issue conditional letter of intent to the accused society with a condition to comply the conditions specified in the said letter of intent. She further states that after issuance of letter of intent, the committee also issued formal recognition as shown in page No.340 of Ex.P-5 file and Ex.P-3 & Ex.P-5 files do not reflect regarding receiving of FDRs for Rs.7,00,000/-
114 C.C.No.17622/2017and Rs.5,00,000/- for each course from the accused society.
224. PW-2 in her cross-examination admitted that the committee has raised objection only with regard to submission of FDRs at the time of issuance of Provisional Recognition.
225. Further, the original note sheet at sheet No. 261 marked in Ex.P-3 reveals that the decision has taken in 312th meeting of SRC that (1). Assistant Professor (Socio/Phil) and Assistant Professor (Fine Arts) are required, (2). Issue SCN accordingly, (3) The case is linked with case No. 3400 and this case No. 3400 is eligible for recognition, but it has to be kept in abeyance for a final decision in the linked B.Ed case No. 3401. Further, the Institution has submitted written representation on 02.05.2016 for formal recognition orders to run B.Ed with one Basic Unit and draft agenda prepared and put up for perusal and further order on 02.05.2016.
226. The original representation dated 02.05.2016 of accused No. 1 Society is marked in Ex.P-3 at sheet No. 247 wherein accused No. 2 requested to issue formal recognition order to run B.Ed course by mentioning the faculty members.
115 C.C.No.17622/2017227. Further the original note sheet at sheet No. 262 marked in Ex.P-3 reveals that the decision has taken to issue formal recognition in SRC 313rd meeting held on 2nd and 3rd May 2016. Subsequently, a formal recognition order was issued.
228. The copy of the order of the Regional Director dated 02.05.2016 is marked in Ex.P-3 at sheet No. 215 which reveals that NCTE grant recognition to Sree Sarada D.El.Ed college for conducting D.El.Ed programs for two years with one unit of 50 students from the academic session 2016-17 subject to conditions for deposit of Endowment Fund of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Reserve Fund of Rs. 7,00,000/- and comply with the various other norms and standards prescribed in NCTE regulation etc.
229. The original letter dated 17.03.2016 written by the accused No. 2 to the Regional Director, SRC- NCTE, Bengaluru is marked in Ex.P-3 at sheet No. 241 that he is submitting the Annexure-1, 2 and approved staff list selected by the Selection Committee appointed by SCERT AP. Further in original Annexure-1, approved staff list is mentioned. Further the original affidavits of accused No. 2 are produced that the accused No. 1 Society has appointed required number of Teaching and 116 C.C.No.17622/2017 Non-Teaching staff etc. Further the original affidavits of Teaching Staff also produced.
230. Further, the original note sheet at sheet No. 348 marked in Ex.P-5 reveals that the decision has taken in 312th meeting of SRC that (1). Assistant Professor (Socio/Phil) and Assistant Professor (Fine Arts) are required, (2). Issue SCN accordingly, (3) The case is linked with case No. 3400 and this case No. 3400 is eligible for recognition, but it has to be kept in abeyance for a final decision in the linked B.Ed case No. 3401. Further, the Institution has submitted written representation on 02.05.2016 for formal recognition orders to run B.Ed with one Basic Unit and draft agenda prepared and put up for perusal and further order on 02.05.2016.
231. Further the original note sheet at sheet No. 350 marked in Ex.P-5 reveals that the decision has taken to issue formal recognition in SRC 313rd meeting held on 2nd and 3rd May 2016. Subsequently, a formal recognition order was issued.
232. The copy of the order of the Regional Director dated 02.05.2016 is marked in Ex.P-5 at sheet No. 340 which reveals that NCTE grant recognition to Sree Sarada B.Ed college for conducting B.Ed programs for two years with one unit of 50 students from the 117 C.C.No.17622/2017 academic session 2016-17 subject to conditions for deposit of Endowment Fund of Rs. 5,00,000/- and reserve fund of Rs. 7,00,000/- and comply with the various other norms and standards prescribed in NCTE regulation etc.
233. The original letter dated 20.04.2016 written by the accused No. 2 to the Regional Director, SRCNCTE, Bengaluru is marked in Ex.P-5 at sheet No. 329 that he is submitting the Annexure-I, II and approved staff list selected by the Selection Committee appointed by S.K University, Anantapuram. Further in original Annexure- I, approved staff list is mentioned. Further the original affidavit of accused No. 2 is produced that the accused No. 1 Society has appointed required number of Teaching and Non-Teaching staff etc. Further the original affidavits of Teaching Staff and original staff profile with letter dated 18.04.2016 of the Registrar, Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Anantapuram also produced.
234. PW-6 Sri. Sanjay Gupta the then Regional Director, NCTE, Bengaluru deposed in his evidence that the CBI, Bengaluru had requested him to furnish documents pertaining to this case and the CBI officer also sought clarification relating to the NCTE Act and accordingly, through his letter dated 02.01.2017 in Ex.P-
118 C.C.No.17622/201731, he has furnished the documents to CBI and in Ex.P- 31, he has narrated the clarification regarding para No.7(7) of NCTE Regulations, 2014. He further states that Ex.P-32 letter dated 02.05.2016 of NCTE addressed to the Principal, Sri Sharadha D.Ed., College, Ananthapura and Ex.P.33 letter dated 02.05.2016 addressed to the Principal, Sri Sharadha D.Ed., College, Ananthapura regarding granting recognition to Sri Sharadha D.Ed., College and Ex.P.34 the certificate issued by him U/s.65(b) Evidence Act in respect of above said documents.
235. P.W.6 further states that after issuing the Letter of Intent (LOI) by NCTE, the college has to submit the fixed deposit receipt in the joint name of institution and regional director totaling to Rs.24,00,000/- and the institution has not submitted the FDR as directed by the NCTE and if the FDR is submitted as directed by the NCTE, it will be mentioned in the Central Register and the copy of the same will be kept in the file and original will be separately kept in the office. He further states that he has seen the central registry and there is no mention as to receiving of FDRs from Sri Sharadha Educational D.Ed., College and Ex.P-33 letter of NCTE along with Center Dairy Report from 01.04.2016 to 03.01.2017 were submitted to CBI by him and in the said document, there is no mention regarding receiving 119 C.C.No.17622/2017 of FDR from the Sharadha Educational Society and formal recognition was issued by the NCTE on 02.05.2016 and even after the formal recognition letter was issued, the college has not submitted the FDR.
236. P.W.6 was subjected to cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 wherein he denied the suggestion made that the information furnished in Ex.P.31 is false. P.W.6 admits that Ex.P.32 is xerox copy, but he further states that xerox was taken on the original by him. He further states that he has not certified to that effect and I.O. has not asked him to produce the original, hence has not produced the original. He further states that, he know the procedure regarding issuance of LOI and on the basis of report of visiting team and the documents submitted by the institution, the Regional Committee is deemed fit can issue the LOI. It is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.6 has no personal knowledge regarding the accused No.1 society. It is pertinent to note that the P.W.6 being the Regional Director of NCTE has submitted the documents and narrated clarification to the CBI and he is deposing before the Court on the basis of documents.
237. Ex.P-31 is the letter dated 02.01.2017 written by the PW-6 Sri. Sanjay Guptha, Regional Director, SRC NCTE and gave information that Institution has not submitted original Fixed Deposit receipt along with the 120 C.C.No.17622/2017 reply to the Letter of Intent and also not submitted original Fixed Deposit receipt either at the time of issuance of formal recognition to this office or even till date. Further, he furnished Annexure -I to III and the copy of the Center Diary Report along with certificate u/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act.
238. Ex.P-32 is the Annexure-II i.e letter dated 02.05.2016 issued by the PW-2 to the Principal of Sree Sarada D.El.Ed college wherein the accused No. 2 endorsed with his signature that he received the copy.
239. Ex.P-33 is the copy of Gazette publication order dated 02.05.2016 issued by the PW-2 in respect to grant of recognition to Sree Sarada D.El.Ed college. Further, the computer print out of Center Diary Report also furnished by the PW-6 along with certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as per Ex.P-34.
240. Ex.P-100 is the original letter dated 04.11.2016 written by P.W.6 the then In-charge Regional Director by name Sri. Satish Guptha to the Investigating Officer along with the letters of PW-2, attendance of the committee members, summary sheet. It reveals that the In-charge Regional Director was furnished the copy of summary sheet of 313th meeting of SRC and copy of the letter sent to Sree Sarada D.El.Ed college on 02.05.2016 121 C.C.No.17622/2017 and copy of the register showing the attendance of the Committee Members.
241. Ex.P-7 is the NCTE Southern Regional Office, SRC Meetings Attendance Register from 300th meeting to 324th meeting. It reveals that the date of meetings and the signatures of the Chairman, Members, State Government Representatives i.e Directors of SCERT of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Secretary Education of Pandichery, Andaman Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Regional Director who attended the said meetings is found in the Register. Ex.P-7(a) is the signature of the PW-2 who was the Regional Director for attending the 300 th SRC meeting. Further, the signatures of the PW-2 is also found in the Register for attending the 301 to 318th SRC meeting.
242. Ex.P-8 is the Booklet and Ex.P-18 is the summary containing the decision of 313rd emergent meeting of SRC held on 02.05.2016 and 03.05.2016 and Ex.P-14 is copy of the same. It reveals that in Serial No. 167, the decision made in respect to accused No. 1 Institution to run the D.El.Ed and B.Ed courses as under:
B.Ed: 1. The reply is not correct, no of faculty members is not the only factor. Staff pattern is equally relevant. This case, can if possible be met by faculty sharing between allied courses. But, in 122 C.C.No.17622/2017 this case, even the B.Ed course does not have faculty in Sociology/Psychology to handle the Curricular load adequately. 2. Issue SCN accordingly.
D.El.Ed: 1. The reply is not correct, no of faculty members is not the only factor. Staff pattern is equally relevant. This case, can if possible be met by faculty sharing between allied courses. But, in this case, even the D.El.Ed course does not have faculty in Sociology/Psychology to handle the curricular load adequately.
2. Issue SCN accordingly.
243. P.W.18 Sri. K. Anjayya Retired District Education Officer in his evidence deposed that from 14.11.2014 to 31.10.2016 he was working as D.E.O., Ananthapura and as a D.E.O. his duties were inspection of schools, Teacher Education Colleges, Establishment of Schools, Service Matters of Teachers etc., and for starting new D.Ed., College the applicant has to get affiliation from NCTE, Bengaluru and they have to get the staff faculty selected through the SCERT and for the purpose of affiliation, the D.Ed., college they should have infrastructure and other facilities as enumerated by the NCTE.
244. P.W.18 identified Ex.P.63 letter dated 27.10.2016, addressed by Smt.M.V.Rajyalakshmi, Director, SCERT, to the investigating officer and identified Ex.P.64 Check list for issue of NOC, pertaining 123 C.C.No.17622/2017 to Sharada Education Society and identified Ex.P.65 proceedings of the Director of SCERT, dated: 25.05.2015 and Ex.P.66 proceedings of the Director of SCERT, dated:
03.03.2016 and Ex.P.67 proceedings of the Director of SCERT, dated: 16.03.2016 and identified Ex.P.68 approved staff list of Sharada Education Society and identified Ex.P.69 affiliation Statement of Sharada Education Society and identified Ex.P.70 letter of RJDS, address to Director, SCERT and identified Ex.P.71 Inspection Report along with enclosures issued by the R.J.D and D.E.O and identified Ex.P.72 letter dated:6.06.2016 written by Rajalakshmi, Director, SCERT, to Principal Secretary, Govt.School Education Department and identified Ex.P.73 G.O.dated 26.07.2016 and 6.11.2017 and identified Ex.P.74 letter dated:13.10.2016 written by him to the I.O. regarding clarification of Sharada Education Society.
245. P.W.18 further deposed that Ex.P.66 pertaining to proceedings dated 03.03.2016 and Smt.Rajalakshmi had nominated him and Principal by name K.Munaiah as a representative to select faculty of Sri.Sharada D.Ed., College Ananthapur and K.Munnaiah, Principal of Govt.DIET College, Conducted written examinations and interviewed for 8 candidates on 9.3.2016 at Govt. DIET. College, Bukkapatnam and selected them and thereafter Smt.M.V.Rajalakshmi had 124 C.C.No.17622/2017 approved the staff list of the 8 faculty members as per approved staff list enclosed to Ex.P.71. He further deposed that he knew Sri.Obulapathy, who is the A.P. Govt. School Teachers and President of A.P.State Teacher Federation, Ananthapura and he has signed on the inspection Report and there was sufficient facilities to start college.
246. Considering the evidence of P.W.18, he was treated as partly hostile and he was subjected to cross-
examination by the Ld. PP with regard to he signed the proposal and inspection report as per the instruction of accused No.3, even though accused No.1 institution do not have basic infrastructure to start B.Ed. College, but he denied the said suggestions.
247. P.W.20 Sri. Premanandan Retired Regional Joint Director of School Education deposed in his evidence that he sent Ex.P.70 letter to the Director, SCERT, Hyderabad and in order start new D.Ed College, it has to get affiliation from the SCERT Govt. of AP and in order to get the affiliation to the D.Ed College, it should have 19 Rooms and other basic infrastructure. He further states that Shri Sharada Educational Society had made an application to the SCERT, requesting for grant of affiliation for the D.Ed Course in their College and the Director SCERT in turn issued orders nominating 125 C.C.No.17622/2017 himself and Mr. Anjayya to conduct inspection of the Colleges and for submitting the report.
248. Further, P.W.20 states that on 07.05.2016, he visited the College for the purpose of inspection and the accused No.1 society is having 15 rooms and the institution have suitable infrastructure and Ex.P.71 inspection report prepared by him in respect of Shri Sharada D.Ed College and he has signed on the Ex.P.71 as per Ex.P.71 (a) and further he deposed that as per the guidelines 19 rooms are required to start D.Ed. College. Further he states that no one had requested him to give Ex.P.71 inspection report in particular manner and fashion. Considering his evidence, he treated as partly hostile and subjected to cross-examination by the Ld. PP wherein he denied the suggestions made that he prepared the inspection report at the request of accused No.3. He further states that he has not taken photographs of the rooms at the time of inspection.
249. According to the evidence of P.W.18 and 20, there was sufficient facilities to start the D.El.Ed., college by the accused No.1 institution.
250. Ex.P-66 is the attested copy of the proceedings of the Director, SCERT, Andhra Pradesh dated 03.03.2016 for constitution of Staff Selection Committee to Sri. Sarada D.El.Ed college of Akuledu village.
126 C.C.No.17622/2017251. Ex.P-67 is the original proceedings of the Director, SCERT, Andhra Pradesh dated 16.03.2016 for constituting the Verification Committee Members to verify the correctness of selection made by the Selection Committee and also for verification of the original certificates of the selected candidates.
252. Ex.P-68 is the attested copy of the approved staff list of D.Ed course for Sri. Sarada D.El.Ed college of Akuledu village.
253. Ex.P-69 is the attested copy of the affiliation of private D.Ed colleges for the year 2016-17-renewal scrutiny report of applications with respect to Sri. Sarada D.El.Ed college of Akuledu village wherein recommendation was made for affiliation.
254. Ex.P-70 is the attested copy of the letter dated 12.05.2016 submitted by the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kadapa to the Director of SCERT, Andhra Pradesh. It reveals that Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kadapa has furnished the Inspection Report for grant of affiliation in respect to Sri. Sarada D.El.Ed college of Akuledu village to start D.El.Ed course after verification of infrastructure facilities, academic inputs provided by the management as per NCTE norms.
127 C.C.No.17622/2017255. Ex.P-71 is the attested copy of the Inspection Report for fresh affiliation for the academic year 2016-
17. It reveals that date of inspection mentioned as 12.05.2016 and inspecting officers Sri. V. Premanandam and Sri. K. Anjaiah are visited the Sri. Sarada D.Ed college, Akuledu village and extent of land mentioned as 01 acre and built-up area mentioned as 3282.98 Square meters. Further, the measurement of the classrooms, multipurpose rooms etc mentioned in square feet. Further, it is certified that they were verified the original documents and filled the proforma accordingly. Further in the enclosures, the existing building plan issued by the Gram Panchayath/Municipality, building completion certificate issued by the Gram Panchayath/Municipality, Building Soundness Certificate issued by Panchayath Raj Engineer are mentioned in serial No. 3 to 5. The attested copies of all the enclosures of Inspection Report also got marked as Ex.P-71 including attested copy of the Building Plan issued by PW-9 Sri. B. Thirupal, attested copy of the Building Completion Certificate dated 25.08.2015, Soundness Certificate.
256. Ex.P-72 is the original Letter of Recommendation for fresh affiliation for the year 2016- 17 to start the course B.Ed and D.Ed by Sri. Sarada D.El.Ed college of Akuledu village and original Annexure 128 C.C.No.17622/2017
-I issued by the Director of SCERT, Andra Pradesh wherein recommended for grant of fresh affilition to Sri. Sarada D.El.Ed college for the courses of B.Ed and D.Ed subject to condition. Further it reveals that the built-up area mentioned in Annexure-I is 3282.98 Square Meters.
257. Ex.P-73 is the attested copy of the order dated 26.07.2016 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government wherein fresh affiliation granted conditionally to Sri. Sarada D.El.Ed college, Akuledu village. The attested copies of the order dated 06.11.2007 for framing the certain norms for selection of staffs of Elementary Teacher Education Program and attested copy of the Appendix-II also marked as Ex.P-73.
258. Ex.P-74 is the original letter dated 13.10.2016 issued by the PW-18 K. Anjaiah to the Investigating Officer for enclosing the attested copies of the proceedings dated 27.11.2010 of District Education Officer, Anantapur and check list of Sri. Sarada D.Ed college.
259. P.W.22 Sri. K. Munaiah the then Retd. Senior Lecturer, District Institute of Education and Training in his evidence deposed that on 19.05.2016, he was promoted as Sr. Lecturer and posted to DIET College, Bukkapathnam and from 2016 and he worked as in- charge Principal of DIET College, Bukkapathnam and as 129 C.C.No.17622/2017 a Principal his duties and responsibilities were to attending the administration of the DIET College and giving lecturers to the trainees and his work also includes selection of staff for the private D.Ed Colleges
260. P.W.22 identified Ex.P.3 (e) file containing the proceedings dated 03.03.2016 of the director SCERT in page No.220 and deposed that the said proceedings in Ex.P.3 (e) was prepared by the Director SCERT for selection of D. Ed Lecturers for Shri Sharada Educational College. Further P.W.22 identified Ex.P.3 (f) which contains a letter addressed by Sri Seshadri Reddy in favour of Anjaiah and in page No.217 which contains a letter addressed by Sri Seshadri Reddy to him requesting them to attend the staff selection on 09.03.2016. He further identified Ex.P.3 (g) resolution of the committee members regarding selection of staff in respect of Shri Sharada D.Ed College and identified Ex.P.74 and page No.3 of the said documents contains a check list and he deposed that he has signed on it and Page No.4 of Ex.P.74 is a brief report of the nominee of the staff selection committee for Private D.Ed College and he has signed on it.
261. P.W.22 deposed that from 09.05.2008 to 14.11.2008 he worked as in-charge District Education Officer in Ananthapur District and he know accused No.3 and he is a Teacher and used to meet him regarding 130 C.C.No.17622/2017 the Teachers service problems and as per the orders of Director SCERT and he has been nominated as the member of staff selection committee for Shri Sharada D.Ed College, Akuledu Village and once accused No.2 and 3 met him at the DIET College, Bukkapathnam and they asked him if any one of the faculty member was not present, the selection process should be continued, for that he has refused and he has insisted them to bring all the candidates for the written examination and oral interview.
262. P.W.22 further deposed that on 09.03.2016 he conducted the examination for selection of Lecturers and at that time accused No.2 and committee members were present and accordingly, he has selected the candidates as the faculty member of committee for Shri Sharada D.Ed College and he identified Ex.P.3 (h) the approved staff list of D.Ed Course in respect of Shri Sharada D.Ed College and as per the Ex.P.3, he has selected 8 candidates.
263. P.W.22 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 wherein he admits that selection of the faculty is done by following procedure and without any influence from anybody. He denied the suggestion made to him that accused No.2 never met him.
131 C.C.No.17622/2017264. Further P.W.22 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.3 wherein he states that he does not remember exact date and time when accused No.3 met him and he has no idea where accused No.3 was working and under what capacity at that time. He denied the suggestion made by the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.3 that accused No.3 never met him. Hence, as per the evidence of P.W.22, accused No.2 and 3 approached him at the time of staff selection to the Sree Sarada D.Ed. College, Akuledu village and asked him to do selection process in the absence of any faculty member, for which he refused.
265. P.W.23 - Dr. K. Pandurangaswamy in his evidence states that he handed over the Ex.P.77 to 80 documents to the CBI.
266. Ex.P-77 is the original letter dated 13.10.2016 issued by the In-charge Director SCERT, Andhra pradesh to the Investigating Officer for furnishing the information with required records. Ex.P-78 is the attested copy of the proceedings of the Director, SCERT, Andhra Pradesh dated 25.02.2015 for issuance of NOC to start D.El.Ed course by the Sri. Sarada D.Ed college, Akuledu village. Ex.P-79 is the attested copy of the proceedings of the Director, SCERT, Andhra Pradesh dated 03.03.2016 for constituting staff selection committee to start D.El.Ed 132 C.C.No.17622/2017 course by the Sri. Sarada D.El.Ed college, Akuledu village. Ex.P-80 is the proceedings of the Director, SCERT, Andhra Pradesh dated 16.03.2016 for approval of the staff list to start D.El.Ed course by the Sri. Sarada D.Ed college, Akuledu village along with the attested copy of the approved staff list.
267. P.W.26 - Sri. M. Janardhana Charyulu the then DEO, office of the Regional Joint Director of School Education in his evidence states that he has handed over the Ex.P.82 and 83 documents to CBI and the Director of SCERT A.P. Amaravathi was the competent Authority for granting Affiliation to private D. Ed Colleges and the Director of SCERT issued the final list of Private D. Ed Colleges in Ananthapur District as per Ex.P.83 and in the said list in the Sl. No.45 the name of Sri Sarada Education Society reflects and the capacity of the students mentioned in the said documents as 50 seats.
268. P.W.26 further states that during the year 2016, the Diploma in Elementary Education Common Entrance Test (DEECET) was conducted through Online and the qualified candidates exercised their options through Website and accordingly seats were allotted to the candidates as per their options and out of 50 seats allotted to Sri Sarada Education Society, 40 seats were allotted under the convener quota and the remaining 10 seats were filled by the management. He further states 133 C.C.No.17622/2017 that an amount of Rs.1.22 Lakhs was paid by the candidates towards the convener - quota - tuition fees at the time of counseling and the amount was transferred to the bank account of College held at SBI, Sai Nagar Branch, Ananthapur and the Tuition Fees of Rs.12,500/- from each candidates has been collected by the management and the 4 seats were filled by the institute under management quota.
269. Ex.P-82 is the original letter dated 15.05.2017 issued by the Regional Joint Director of School Education to the Investigating Officer for furnishing the information sought by the Investigating Officer. It reveals that he gave information that Anantapura District the list of 49 private D.Ed colleges were included in Web Counseling wherein the name of the college Sri. Sarada D.Ed college, Ahuledu village, Singanamala Mandal, Anantapura District with the intake capacity of 50 seats and out of 50 seats, 40 seats(i.e 80%) were allotted to convener quota to be filled by Web Counseling by the convener and the remaining 10 seats (i.e 20%) will be filled by management. Accordingly, 30 seats were filled by convener quota and 4 seats by Management quota and total amount of Rs. 1,22,000/- were paid by the candidates towards tuition fee at the time of counseling and the same amount was transferred to the A/c No. 10873694841 SBI main branch, Sainagar, Anantapura 134 C.C.No.17622/2017 on 02.05.2017 through on-line by the convener DEECET 2016 and RJDSC Guntur. Ex.P-82(a) is the signature of the Regional Joint Director of School Education by name Sri. K.V Srinivasulu Reddy which was identified by the PW-26.
270. Ex.P-83 is the attested copy of the list of candidates with hall ticket number and details of amount paid in respect to Sree Sarada D.El.Ed college, Akuledu village along with attested copies of the list of candidates admitted in Management quota, college-wise final allotment list, final list of private D.Ed colleges along with total intake of seats.
271. P.W.26 was not cross-examined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused No.1 to 3. Hence as per the evidence of P.W.26 and Ex.P.82 and 83 documents, the Director of SCERT, A.P., Amaravathi was issued final list of private D.Ed., colleges in Ananthapura District for granting affiliation as per Ex.P.83 and in the said list, the name of accused No.1 society was shown in Sl.No.45 and out of 50 seats allotted to the accused No.1 society, 40 seats were allotted under the convener quota and the remaining 10 seats were filled by the management and an amount of Rs.1.22 Lakhs was paid by the candidates towards the convener - quota - tuition fees at the time of counseling and the amount was transferred to the bank account of College held at SBI, Sai Nagar Branch, 135 C.C.No.17622/2017 Ananthapur and the Tuition Fees of Rs.12,500/- from each candidates has been collected by the management and the 4 seats were filled by the institute under management quota.
272. P.W.28 - Sri. G. Ramana Reddy in his evidence states that during the year 2017, the CBI Investigation Officer called him to the CBI office, at that time they have shown Ex.P.3 (i) staff profile in the file pertaining to Sri Sarada Education Society and in the said document in Sl.No.1 his name reflects as Principal and he can see his photograph also. He further states that he know accused No.3 since about 10 years and during the year 2016, he saw advertisement in the news paper namely Shakshi calling applications for the post of Principal and lecture in Sri Sarada D. Ed College and he has called the number given in the advertisement Mr. Satyanarayana and spoke to him and after that, he told that he want to meet him and he came to his house and he requested him to give photocopies of his certificates and called him to appear in the examination. He further states that he did not joined to the college, during the time of process he has given his photographs and certificates to Mr. Satyanarayana and he also went to Bukkapatnam for taking examination and interview and he asked the salary of Rs.20,000/-, but they offered only Rs.15,000/- and therefore, he did not join and he does 136 C.C.No.17622/2017 not know how his name is reflected as Principal in Ex.P.3
(i) and in Ex.P.3 file in sheet No.181 to 191 were his marks cards.
273. Ex.P.3 (i) is the copy of the staff profile wherein the name and photograph of P.W.28 shown as Principal and lecturer in English in Sree Sarada D.Ed. College, Akuledu Village.
274. Further the original affidavit attested by the notary is also available in sheet No.231 of Ex.P.3, wherein the name of P.W.28 shown as he is the Principal cum Lecturer in English of Sree Sarada D.Ed. College, Akuledu village.
275. Ex.P.3 (h) is the original Annexure-I issued by the Director, SCERT wherein the name of P.W.28 shown as Principal and Lecturer in English with respect to tentative approved staff list of D.Ed., course in Sree Sarada D.El.Ed., college, Akuledu village.
276. According to Ex.P.3 (h) and (i) documents, P.W.28 shown as Principal and Lecturer in English of Sree Sarada D.El.Ed., college, Akuledu village. But as per the evidence of P.W.28, he handed over his certificates and photographs with an intention to join Sree Sarada D.Ed., college and he attended the examination and interview, but he did not join the said 137 C.C.No.17622/2017 job. However, the name of P.W.28 reflected in approved staff list as Principal.
277. Ex.P-103 is the Receipt Memo dated 06.05.2017 in respect to production of documents i.e (i) college-wise final allotment list, list of candidates admitted in Management quota, (ii) office copies of the final admission letters, provisional admission letters, transfer of admission letters issued to the students for admission in to D.El.Ed course for 2016-17 batch in Sree Sarada D.El.Ed college, (iii) Pupil's Attendance Register,
(iv) Photocopy of the SBI Pass book of accused No. 1 Society. These documents produced by the accused No. 2 to the Investigating Officer. Ex.P-104 is the copies of college-wise final allotment list, list of candidates admitted in Management quota. Ex.P-105 is the office copies of the final admission letters, acknowledgments, check list, transfer of admission letters, provisional admission letters. Ex.P-106 is the Pupil's Attendance Register of Sree Sarada D.El.Ed college of Akuledu village and it reveals that total 35 students were attended the D.El.Ed course. Ex.P-107 is the photocopy of the SBI bank Pass book held in the name of accused No. 1 Society in A/c No. 30760034394 with SBI, Gandhi Bazhar branch, Anantapura.
138 C.C.No.17622/2017278. The original two request letters of the accused No. 2 are marked in Ex.P-5 at sheet No. 97 and 98 which reveals that the accused No. 2 written letters to Regional Director of SRC, NCTE, Bengaluru that the Management members requested for FDRs Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 7,00,000/- to be submitted immediately as soon as possible.
279. As per above oral and documentary evidence, the Regional Director, NCTE in her orders dated 02.05.2016 which is marked in Ex.P-3 at sheet No. 215 and Ex.P-5 at sheet No. 340 and as per Ex.P.33 Gazette Publication order, granted recognition to Sree Sarada D.El.Ed college for conducting D.El.Ed programs for two years with one unit of 50 students and Sree Sarada B.Ed college for conducting B.Ed programs for two years with one unit of 50 students from the academic session 2016- 17 subject to conditions for deposit of Endowment Fund of Rs.5,00,000/- each and reserve fund of Rs. 7,00,000/- each and comply with the various other norms and standards prescribed in NCTE regulations.
280. As per above said oral and documentary evidence, the prosecution has established that Sree Sarada D.Ed., college and Sree Sarada B.Ed., college have not submitted FDRs towards the endowment fund and the reserve fund as directed by the NCTE, but 139 C.C.No.17622/2017 obtained the formal recognition orders for the D.El.Ed. and the B.Ed courses.
281. As per the prosecution case, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy and in order to cheat the NCTE, accused No.2 and 3 forged and created Land Conversion proceedings dated 15.11.2015 to falsely show that the agricultural land at Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu village can be used for running institution and the said document issued by the Revenue Divisional Office, Ananthapura district and said document submitted by accused No.2 and 3 to the Visiting Team as it is a genuine document.
282. As discussed above, the accused No.2 who is the authorized signatory of the applications submitted to the SRC-NCTE for grant of recognition to run B.Ed., and D.El.Ed., courses under accused No.1 institution, mentioned in his original letters marked in Ex.P.3 and 5 which were received by the SRC-NCTE on 18.06.2015 that he submitted the Land conversion certificate/land use certificate at Sl.No.6 of enclosures. But the said Land conversion certificate/land use certificate are not available in Ex.P.1, 2 and 4 documents which were said to be submitted by the accused No.2. Further, as discussed above, at the time of scrutiny of the applications submitted by the accused No.2, it is mentioned in Ex.P.3 and 5 as notarized land use certificate is not submitted. Hence, the SRC in its 296 th 140 C.C.No.17622/2017 meeting taken a decision to ask visiting team to obtain relevant land and building documents. Further, in Ex.P.3 and 5 original note sheets, it is mentioned that the land use certificate submitted along with visiting team report.
283. P.W.3 who is the member of visiting team in his evidence states that during their visit, the office bearers of accused No.1 society namely accused No.3 and others have given building plan, property documents and the said documents submitted by the office bearers are attested by themselves.
284. In Ex.P.5 (g) visiting team report, it is clearly mentioned in Sl.No.2 details as per Land documents that Land Use Certificate (conversion from agriculture to non agriculture) issued by Revenue Divisional Office, Ananthapura, dated 19.11.2015. Further in this document at page 15 also the same details mentioned in respect to Land Usage Certificate.
285. Ex.P-5(o) is the self attested copy of the proceedings of the Competent Authority and Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapuram dated 15.11.2015, wherein the original seal of accused No. 1 society and original signature of accused No. 2 affixed in each page. This document reveals that the said copy of the proceedings given to the accused No. 2. Further, it reveals that the accused No. 2 who is the Secretary and 141 C.C.No.17622/2017 Correspondent of the accused No. 1 Society has applied for conversion of agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 241/2 measuring 01 acre, situated at Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal for the purpose of non-agriculture and the request of the applicant is found to be consistent with the provision of the Act, hence the permission is accorded for conversion of the agricultural land in to non-agricultural purpose on the terms and conditions. According to this document, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapuramu has permitted for conversion of 01 acre of agricultural land in Sy. No. 241/2 situated at Akuledu village for non-agricultural purpose and the signature with date 19.112.2015 of the Revenue Divisional Officer is affixed on the said document as per Ex.P-5(p).
286. According to the evidence of P.W.3, the property documents which were handed over to the visiting team during the visit and inspection were self attested by the office bearers of the accused No.1 institution. On perusal of Ex.P.5 (o) document, it is self attested by the accused No.2 in each page. Further, the signatures of the accused No.2 in Ex.P.5 (o) also marked as Q5 and Q6. Hence, in view of above oral and documentary evidence, it clearly shows that Ex.P.5 (o) self attested copy of proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer dated 15.11.2015 has been submitted to the 142 C.C.No.17622/2017 visiting team by the accused No.3 and other office bearers of accused No.1 institution.
287. P.W.13 - Sri. D. Hussain Sahib, the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapuram, in his evidence states that the CBI officer have called him before examination and questioned him regarding Ex.P.5
(o) Land Conversion Proceedings dated 15.11.2015 purportedly issued from their office. He further states that this document was not issued from their office and in the said document, his name mentioned as "Mr.D.Hassain Sahib M.A. B.Ed." and it is also shown in the document that it was issued to Sharada Education, Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society, Akuledu, Ananthapuram and it is also shown in the said document that land to the extent of 1 acre in Sy.No.241/2 of Akuledu village, Singanamala mandal, Ananthapuram was converted land from agricultural to non agricultural usage.
288. P.W.13 further states that he has not converted the above said land from agricultural to non agricultural usage when he was worked as R.D.O. in Ananthapuram and no such proceedings was happened during his tenure either by himself or any of other officer of their department. He further states that the signature affixed on the said document is not belongs to him and 143 C.C.No.17622/2017 the name mentioned in the D. Hassain Sahib is not correct and his correct name is D. Hussain Sahib and also it will not be mentioned as "Mr.".
289. P.W.13 further states that the reference mentioned in the said document that No.D.Dis.D.2/1852/2015 dated 15.11.2015 does not belongs to land conversion certificate and the said reference was used for subject of Mines and Minerals in the R.D.O. office. He further states that in Ex.P.48, they informed to the C.B.I. that after verifying the office records, they have found that Sharada Education Society has not applied for conversion of land and therefore issuance of conversion proceedings from their office does not arise at all.
290. P.W.13 further states that Ex.P.50 letter dated 26.06.2015 was addressed to the Tahsildar Kuderu to inspect the Sy.No.579 of Maratla village of Kuderu Mandal, Ananthapuram District for grant of no objection certificate for grant of mining lease and the reference No.R.C.No.C/1852/2015 dated 26.06.2015 was referred to the subject of Mine and Minerals and he does not know correspondent of the Sharada Educational Society.
291. P.W.13 was subjected to cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 wherein he 144 C.C.No.17622/2017 admits that the Revenue Divisional Officer is the competent authority to issue Land Conversion Order and while issuing Land Conversion Order, they are maintaining register ledger in their office and they have not handed over the land conversion register to the CBI. He denied the suggestions made to him that they have intentionally not handed over the said register to the CBI. It is the specific case of the prosecution that Ex.P.5
(o) is the forged document. In this regard, the prosecution has examined P.W.13 who was the competent authority to issue Land Conversion Order at the relevant point of time. Further, P.W.13 in his evidence specifically denied the issuance of Ex.P.5 (o) document and also his signature shown as per Ex.P.5
(p). It is pertinent to note that according to Ex.P.5 (o), P.W.13 is the author of the said document, but he clearly denyed his signature on the said document and issuance of the said document by him and his office. Further, P.W.13 specifically states that after verifying the office records, they have found that Sharada Education Society has not applied for conversion of land and therefore issue of conversion proceedings from their office does not arise at all. Hence, the prosecution has proved its burden by examining the P.W.13 who alleged to have been issued Ex.P.5 (o) document. Hence, there is no substance in the contention of the accused No.1 and 2 145 C.C.No.17622/2017 that P.W.13 has intentionally not handed over the said register to the CBI.
292. Further, P.W.13 in his cross-examination states that they are not maintaining the register for being received the application for Land Conversion. He further states that when the applicants submits application through online, then RDO downloaded the application and sent to the concerned Tahsildar for inquiry and all the applications submitted by the applicants are available in the system and they have not handed over the copies of the documents which were stored in the computer system. Further, he states that they have not submitted any documents to show that they have verified the online portal. He further states that the Land Conversion Orders maintained manually. It is pertinent to note that P.W.13 states that they have informed to CBI in Ex.P.48 document that after verifying the office records, they have found that Sarada Education society has not applied for Conversion of Land and therefore issuance of conversion proceedings from their office does not arise at all.
293. Ex.P-48 is the true copy of the letter dated 04.10.2016 written by Sri. A. Malola, Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapuramu to CBI that 'After verifying the office records, it is found that Sri. S. Sheshadri Reddy, Secretary and Correspondent, Sree Sarada Educational 146 C.C.No.17622/2017 Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society, Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal, Anatapuram District has not applied for conversion of land in respect of the land in Sy.No. 241/2, extent 01 acre of Akuledu village of Singanamala Mandal, hence, issue of conversion proceedings from this office does not arise and the conversion proceedings sent along with the reference cited above has not been issued from this office and it is fake'.
294. Further PW-13 identified the original signature of Superintendent by name Sri. Lakshminarayana and the same is marked as Ex.P-48(a). In the cross-examination of P.W.13 he admits that he is seeing Ex.P.48 first time in the Court and he has not seen the person signing in the Ex.P.48. Ex.P.48 is the original signature of Divisional Admin Officer of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapuram which was identified by the P.W.13 as Ex.P.48 (a).
295. Section 47 of Indian Evidence Act reads as under;
'When the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact.
147 C.C.No.17622/2017Explanations : A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him.
Illustrations ; The question is, whether a given letter is in the underwriting of A, a merchant in London.
B is a merchant in Calcutta, who has written letters addressed to A and received letters purporting to be written by him. C is B's clerk, whose duty it was to examine and file B's correspondence. D is B's broker, to whom B habitually submitted the letters purporting to be written by A for the purpose of advising him thereon.
The opinions of B, C and D on the question whether the letter is in the handwriting of A are relevant, though neither B, C nor D ever saw A write'.
296. In view of the above provision of law, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact.
148 C.C.No.17622/2017297. In this case, P.W.13 who was the Revenue Divisional Officer has identified the signature of the Divisional Admin Officer of Revenue Divisional Office, Ananthapuram as he was the Superintendent by name Lakshminarayana. Though P.W.13 has not seen the Sri. Lakshminarayana signing in Ex.P.48, but he was the officer superior to Lakshminarayana and he acquainted with the signature of Lakshminarayana. Hence, P.W.13 has identified the signature of Lakshminarayana. Hence, the opinion of P.W.13 who acquainted with the signature of Lakshminarayana is relevant fact to show that the Ex.P.48 (a) signature pertaining to the Lakshminarayana. Hence, there is no substance in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and
2.
298. Ex.P-49 is the Receipt Memo and Ex.P-50 is the original letter bearing R.C No. C/1852/2015 dated 26.06.2015 written by the PW-13 Sri. D. Hussain Sahib to the Tahasildar, Kuderu and it reveals that the said reference in respect to the inspection of the Sy. No. 579 measuring 04 acre of Marutta village of Kuderu Mandal, Anantapuram District for grant of queary lease. Ex.P- 50(a) is the signature of the PW-13.
299. P.W.14 - Sri. D. Tirumala Reddy the then Deputy Tahsildar (Land Matters), RDO office, 149 C.C.No.17622/2017 Ananthapura in his evidence states that from 29.08.2009 to 31.01.2017 he worked as Deputy Tahsildar (land matters) in the Office of the R.D.O. Ananthapura and his duties were to dealing with land related matters including land conversion. He further states that the CBI officer has called him for examination and shown him Ex.P.5 (o) the land conversion proceedings dated 15.11.2015 and he states that the said document was not at all issued from their office. He further states that the Signature affixed in said document is not at all belongs to their officers and he has not received any application for the conversion of land in Sy.No.241/2, Akaledu village Singanamala mandal, Ananthapura District from agricultural to non- agricultural purpose.
300. P.W.14 further states that he has verified the records available in their office regarding application of Sharada Educational Society for the conversion of the land and found that they have not at all applied for conversion of land to the extent of 1 acre and in their office the seat No."D2" was handling the matters pertaining to land issue and land conversion. He further states that the reference No. Mentioned in Ex.P.5(o) that is No.C/1852/2015 dated 15.11.2015 is belongs to "C" seat and the "C" seat deals with mines and minerals subject and the above reference is regarding grant of 150 C.C.No.17622/2017 Quarry Lease in Sy.No.579 of Martula village, Kuderu mandal, Ananthapura. He further states that Ex.P.50 shows that reference No.1852/2015 pertains to Sy.No.579 of Martula village, Kuderu mandal, Ananthapura and it is pertaining to mines and minerals.
301. P.W.14 was subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 wherein he states that the procedure to get land conversion is that to submit the application physically to the office and their Head Office i.e. R.D.O will receive the applications and whatever application received by them, they had maintained the same in the register and to each application, they will give separate number. He further states that he has verified the register to know that whether the application was submitted or not and he has maintained a register, to know that whether the applications received by him and he has not handed over the register to the CBI officer. Further he admits that whatever he is deposing before this Hon'ble Court is only on the basis of records and to know whether application was submitted or not, the register is very much necessary and once land conversion order is issued, they will maintain a register. He further states that while giving statement before the CBI officer, he has stated that after verifying the documents, he has given the statement. Further he admits that he has no difficulty to 151 C.C.No.17622/2017 submit the register to the CBI. He denied the suggestion made to him that without verifying the documents he is deposing false evidence before the Court.
302. According to the evidence of P.W.14, Ex.P.5 (o) was not at all issued from their office and the signature affixed in the said document is not at all belongs to their officers. P.W.14 is the then Deputy Tahsildar in the office of RDO Ananthapura, when P.W.13 was working as RDO, Ananthapura.
303. In view of Section 47 of Indian Evidence Act, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact.
304. In this case, P.W.14 who was the Deputy Tahsildar has specifically states that the signature affixed in the Ex.P.5 (o) document is not at all belongs to their officers. Hence, the opinion of P.W.14 who acquainted with the signature of P.W.13 is relevant fact to show that the signature in Ex.P.5 (o) not pertaining to the P.W.13.
305. According to the evidence of P.W.14, the application for conversion of land shall be submitted physically and such applications received by them were 152 C.C.No.17622/2017 maintained in the Register by giving separate number and he verified the register to know that whether the application was submitted or not, but he has not handed over the said register to the CBI. Though P.W.14 has not handed over the register maintained in the RDO office with respect to conversion of Land, but he specifically states that he verified the records to know that whether application was submitted or not and he has not received any application for conversion of the land bearing Sy.No.241/2 of Akuledu village. Hence, there is no substance in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2.
306. P.W.12 - Sri. P. Venugopala Gupta, the then Mandal Surveyor of Tahsildar Office, Singanamala Mandal stated in his evidence that Ex.P.45 Adangal Extract of Sy.No.241/2 of Akuledu village is a dry land.
307. Ex.P-49 is the Receipt Memo and Ex.P-50 is the original letter bearing R.C No. C/1852/2015 dated 26.06.2015 written by the PW-13 Sri. D. Hussain Sahib to the Tahasildar, Kuderu and it reveals that the said reference in respect to the inspection of the Sy. No. 579 measuring 04 acre of Marutta village of Kuderu Mandal, Anantapuram District for grant of quarry lease. Ex.P- 50(a) is the signature of the PW-13.
153 C.C.No.17622/2017308. According to the evidence of P.W.13 and 14, the reference number mentioned in Ex.P.5 (o) pertaining to the grant of quarry lease under the Mines and Minerals and not belongs to Land Conversion Order. Ex.P.50 reveals that the said reference RC.No.C/1852/2015 dated 26.06.2015 in respect to the inspection of the Sy. No. 579 measuring 04 acre of Marutta village of Kuderu Mandal, Anantapuram District for grant of quarry lease. In Ex.P.5 (o), the dispatch number mentioned as D2/1852/2015 dated 15.11.2015 is mentioned.
309. P.W.36 Sri. P. Venugopala Rao, the then Asst. Director and Scientist 'C' at CFSL, Hyderabad deposed in his evidence that he independently examined the questioned documents marked as Q1 to Q31 and specimen documents marked as S1 to S18 utilizing various scientific aids that includes lenses of various magnifications and applied the basic principal of comparison i.e. like with like comparison during the examination of the signatures and arrived to opinion as per Ex.P.114 and also gave detailed reasons for his opinion. He further states that in his opinion, the person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked as S1 to S6 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q3 and Q5 to Q24.
154 C.C.No.17622/2017310. According to the evidence of P.W.36, the person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked as S1 to S6 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q3 and Q5 to Q24.
311. Ex.P-113 is the specimen signatures of accused No.2 taken by the investigating officer and the specimen signatures of accused No. 2 is marked as S1 to S6.
312. P.W.35 - Sri. S. Subramanya Investigating Officer deposed in his evidence that he has collected Ex.P.113 specimen signature of accused No.2 and marked it as S1 to S6 and sent to CFSL for expert opinion.
313. As discussed above, Q5 and Q6 marked in Ex.P.5(o) are the signatures of the accused No.2 while making attestation which were compared and examined with the specimen signatures of accused No.2 marked in S1 to S6 by the P.W.36 expert and as per his opinion, the person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked as S1 to S6 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q5 and 6. Hence, as per the evidence of P.W.36, accused No.2 affixed the signatures marked as Q5 and Q6 in Ex.P.5(o).
155 C.C.No.17622/2017314. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has proved that the accused No.2 and 3 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy have created the Ex.P.5 (o) Land Conversion Order and it was self attested by the accused No.2 and submitted to the visiting team members during the inspection.
315. As per the prosecution case, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy and in order to cheat the NCTE, accused No.2 and 3 forged and created Building Completion Certificate dated 25.08.2015 to falsely show that sufficient building were available at the land at Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu village to run the college and the said document was issued by Mandal Engineering Office, Singanamala Mandal Ananthapura district and on the instruction of accused No.3, the accused No.2 got the seal i.e. rubber stamp in the name of Mandal Engineering officer, Singanamala Mandal made and affixed the same on the Building Completion Certificate and thereby making and possessing counterfeit seal with intention to commit forgery and said document submitted by accused No.2 and 3 to the Visiting Team as it is a genuine document.
316. As discussed above, the accused No.2 who is the authorized signatory of the applications submitted to the SRC-NCTE for grant of recognition to run B.Ed., and D.El.Ed., courses under accused No.1 institution, 156 C.C.No.17622/2017 mentioned in his original letters marked in Ex.P.3 and 5 which were received by the SRC-NCTE on 18.06.2015 that he submitted copy of Building Completion Certificate by Government Engineer at Sl.No.9 of enclosures. But the said Building Completion Certificate is not available in Ex.P.1, 2 and 4 documents which was said to be submitted by the accused No.2. Further, as discussed above, at the time of scrutiny of the applications submitted by the accused No.2, it is mentioned as Building Completion Certificate is not submitted. Hence, the SRC in its 296 th meeting taken a decision that Building Completion Certificate to be submitted and ask visiting team to obtain relevant land and building documents. Further, in Ex.P.3 and 5 original note sheets, it is mentioned that the Building Completion Certificate submitted along with visiting team report and remarks made that BCC dated 25.08.2015 the built-up area 10304 is submitted.
317. P.W.3 who is the member of visiting team in his evidence states that during their visit, the office bearers of accused No.1 society namely accused No.3 and others have given building plan, property documents and the said documents submitted by the office bearers are attested by themselves.
157 C.C.No.17622/2017318. In Ex.P.5 (g) visiting team report, it is clearly mentioned in Sl.No.2 details as per Land documents that Building Completion Certificate dated 26.08.2015 issued by Mandal Engineering Officer Y. Sreedhara, Asst. Engineer, Singanamala. Further in this document at page 15 also the same details mentioned in respect to Building Completion Certificate.
319. Ex.P-5(n) is the self attested copy of the building completion certificate dated 25.08.2015 wherein the original seal of accused No. 1 society and original signature of accused No. 2 is affixed. It reveals that date of inspection by the Engineer is kept blank. Further owner of the land and building is mentioned as Sree Sarada Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society, Akuledu village and Post, Singanamala Mandal, Anantapuram District. Further, location with survey Number is mentioned as 241/2, Akuledu village and purpose of the building is being used mentioned as Education purpose. Further, in column No. 10 the details of construction of building mentioned as under:
Area Roofing
Ground A B R.C.C
floor 2576 9600
First floor 2576 9600 R.C.C
Second 2576 R.C.C
floor
Third floor 2576 R.C.C
158 C.C.No.17622/2017
320. Further in Ex.P-5(n) Building Completion Certificate, the signature of the Mandal Engineering Officer, M.P Singanamala is affixed with seal and name of the Engineer mentioned as Y. Sreedhar, Designation:
Assistant Executive Engineer, Office address:
Singanamala (M) (Po), Anantapur (Dist), A.P - 515731.
321. According to the evidence of P.W.3, the property documents which were handed over to the visiting team during the visit and inspection were self attested by the office bearers of the accused No.1 institution. On perusal of Ex.P.5 (n) document, it is self attested by the accused No.2. Further, the signatures of the accused No.2 in Ex.P.5 (n) also marked as Q8. Further the seal of the Mandal Engineering Officer marked as Q30. Hence, in view of above oral and documentary evidence, it clearly shows that Ex.P.5 (n) attested copy of the Building Completion Certificate dated 25.08.2015 has been submitted to the visiting team by the accused No.3 and other office bearers of accused No.1 institution.
322. P.W.4 - Sri. K. Sreedhar Rao, the then Mandal Engineer Officer, Singanamala, stated in his evidence that from year 2010 to 2015, he was working as Mandal Engineer Officer in Singnamala and as Mandal Engineer, his duties and responsibilities were to execute the 159 C.C.No.17622/2017 mandal works and Panchayath Raj civil works and apart from this, his work was to issue the building completion certificate and soundness certificate in respect of schools and the roads and buildings department used to issue the building completion certificate in respect of Junior Colleges.
323. P.W.4 further states that Ex.P-5 (n) building completion certificate dated 25.08.2015 purportedly issued by Mandal Engineering Office, MP, Singanamala is not issued from their office and the seal affixed on Ex.P-5(n) is not belongs to their office and the signature found on Ex.P-5(n) is not his signature. He further states that the name of the engineer is mentioned Y. Sridhar, however, his name is K. Sridhar Rao.
324. P.W.4 further states that Ex.P.3 (d) Soundness certificate dated 26.03.2015, purportedly issued by Mandal Engineering Officer, MP, Singanamala is not issued by their office and the seal affixed on Ex.P-3(d) is not belongs to their office and the signature found on the Ex.P-3(d) is not his signature.
325. P.W.4 further states that Ex.P.27 attested copies of Soundness Certificate issued in the name of Sharadha Vidhyanikethana English Medium Elementary School on 26.03.2015 and register of soundness certificate maintained by their office and Ex.P-27 bears 160 C.C.No.17622/2017 his signature as Ex.P-27(a) and in Ex.P-27(d) they have mentioned the details of soundness certificate issued from their office.
326. P.W.4 was subjected cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 wherein he admits that from 2010 to 21.08.2015, he worked Singanamala Mandal. He further states that he does not know whether there is any guidelines issued by Andhra Pradesh Government to issue the building completion certificate and soundness certificate. He denied the suggestion made by the counsel that he does not know the procedure how to issue the building completion certificate and soundness certificate. He states that there is no format to issue the building completion certificate and soundness certificate and as per the procedure, Mandal Engineering Officer is the competent person to issue the building completion certificate and soundness certificate and in order to show that no order or circular are issued to their office.
327. P.W.4 further states that after receipt of the application from the concerned party, they used to enter the same in their register and there was no hurdle for him to give statement before the CBI regarding the entry made by him regarding the receipt of application submitted for issuance of building completion certificate and soundness certificate. He further states that he has 161 C.C.No.17622/2017 seen the proforma issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in respect of maintenance of entry register and certificate issuance register. He admits that in Ex.P-27, there is no mention as to the proforma details and rules. He further admits that he has not seen the original of Ex.P-5(n). It is pertinent to note that Ex.P.5(n) submitted by the accused No. 2 who made self attestetion on it and he has to say about original of the same. He further states that he does not know how many pages were there in Ex.P-27, when he seen the document lastly. He further states that before issuing the soundness certificate, he used to conduct spot inspection. He denied the suggestions made to him that Public Prosecutor have tutted him to depose before this court and his office not maintained original register with regard to the entry of the application and issuance register.
328. According to the evidence of P.W.4, Ex.P.5 (n) and Ex.P.3 (d) not issued by him and the signature found on Ex.P.5 (n) and Ex.P.3 (d) not belongs to him and the seal affixed on Ex.P.5 (n) and Ex.P.3 (d) not belongs to their office and his name is K. Sridhar Rao, but the name of the Engineer mentioned in Ex.P.5 (n) is Y. Sridhar. Though P.W.4 cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2, nothing has been elicited to show that Ex.P.5 (n) and Ex.P.3 (d) issued by him and signatures found on the said documents 162 C.C.No.17622/2017 belongs to him and the seal affixed on said documents belongs to their office. Hence, in view of the evidence of P.W.4, Ex.P.5 (n) Building Completion Certificate was not issued by Mandal Engineering Office, Singanamala or by P.W.4.
329. P.W.7 - Sri. V. Ashok kumar, Asst. Executive Engineer, the Road and Building Departments, Andhra Pradesh deposed in his evidence that in the year 2012, he joined to the Road and Building Departments, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh as Assistant Executive Engineer and as an Assistant Executive Engineer, his duties were to execute the Roads and Buildings and the Road and Building of Ananthapura was headed by Superintending Engineer and it had three sub divisions namely Thadapatri, Gothi and Ananathapura. He further states that Akuledu of Siganamala falls under the jurisdiction of Thadaptri Sub Division and the sub division of Thadapatri was headed by him and there was no Assistant Executive Engineer in the name of Y. Sridhar in their Sub Division. He further states that Ex.P-5(n) building completion certificate was not issued from their office and the signature found on the Ex.P-5(n) is not belongs to him and the seal also not belongs to their office and during his tenure, he has not issued any building completion certificate and in the top of Ex.P-5(n) it is mentioned as Government of Andhara Pradesh, 163 C.C.No.17622/2017 Roads and Building Department and in the bottom, it is mentioned as Mandal Engineering Officer, Singanamala.
330. P.W.7 further states that Ex.P-3(d) soundness certificate purportedly issued by their office and it is not at all issued by his office and the seal affixed on Ex.P- 3(d) not belongs to their office and signature found on Ex.P-3(d) neither belongs to him nor any of their officers. He further states that Ex.P.35 letter dated 25.10.2016 written by Y.R. Subramanyam, Superintending Engineer, RMD, Ananathapura addressed to the I.O., CBI for clarification as to issuing of said building completion certificate and Ex.P.36 letter dated 25.10.2016 of Subramanyam Superintending Engineer, RMD, Ananathapura regarding non issue of building completion certificate to Sri Sharadha Educational Society and Ex.P-35 shows that their department had not issued any building completion certificate to Sri Sharadha Educational Society.
331. P.W.7 was subjected to cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 wherein he states that he was working at Singanamala from 2012 to 2018 and Subramanyam was the Superintending Engineer at that time and he had met Superintending Engineer Subramanyam during his tenure. He further states that he has not seen the signature of 164 C.C.No.17622/2017 Subramanyam while he signing in Ex.P-35. He admits that Subramanyam is the right person to say whether signature found on Ex.P-35 & Ex.P-36 are his signatures and if any document issued from their office, they will mention the same in their register and he has not given the said register to CBI.
332. In view of the above evidence of P.W.7, Ex.P.5
(n) and Ex.P.3 (d) not issued by their office and signatures found on the said documents not belongs to him or their officers and the seal found on the said documents not belongs to their office. It is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.7 that they have mentioned the documents issued from their office in a register and the said register not given to the CBI. It is pertinent to note that if any document issued, then it was mentioned in the register. According to the P.W.7, he or his officer not at all issued Ex.P.5 (n) and Ex.P.3 (d) documents to the accused No.1 institution. Then, the question of mentioning the details of Ex.P.5 (n) and Ex.P.3 (d) in the register does not arise at all. Hence, there is no substance in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2.
333. It is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.7 that he has not seen the signature of Subramanyam Superintendent Engineer while he signing in Ex.P.35 and 165 C.C.No.17622/2017 the said Subramanyam is the right person to say about signatures found on Ex.P.35 and Ex.P.36.
334. In view of Section 47 of Indian Evidence Act, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact.
335. In this case, P.W.7 who was the Asst. Executive Engineer has identified the signature of Superintendent Engineer by name Subramanyam on Ex.P.35 and 36. Though P.W.7 has not seen the Sri. Subrmanyam signing in Ex.P.35 and 36, but he was the officer working under Subramanyam at the relevant point of time who acquainted with the signature of Subramanyam. Hence, P.W.7 has identified the signatures of Subramanyam. Hence, the opinion of P.W.7 who acquainted with the signature of Subramanyam is relevant fact to show that the signatures on Ex.P.35 and Ex.P.36 pertaining to the Subramanyam. Hence, there is no substance in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2.
336. Ex.P-35 is the letter dated 25.10.2016 written by Superintending Engineer Sri. Y.R Subramanyam to the CBI for deputation of PW-7 to produce the 166 C.C.No.17622/2017 documents and reply also furnished to the clarification sought by the Investigating Officer as under:
Sl. Clarification asked by CBI Reply furnished by No Investigation Officer Roads and Buildings .
1. Whether any building No completion certificate completion certificate dated Dt: 25-08-2015 was 25.08.2015 was issued by issued by (R&B) you to Sree Sarada Department officials, for Educational Rural Sree Sarada Development & Animal Educational Rural Welfare Society, Akuledu Development & Animal village and Post, Welfare Society, Singanamala (M) Akuledu village and Anantapuramu Dist. Post, Singanamala (M) Anantapuramu Dist.
2. Whether any building No completion certificate completion certificate of with any other date was any other date was issued issued by (R&B) by you to Sree Sarada Department officials for Educational Rural Sree Sarada Development & Animal Educational Rural Welfare Society, Akuledu Development & Animal village and Post, Welfare Society, Singanamala (M) Akuledu village and Anantapuramu Dist. Post, Singanamala (M) Anantapuramu Dist.
3. Whether the enclosed Enclosed Building Building Completion Completion Certificate Certificate was issued by was not issued by Roads you to Sree Sarada and Buildings Educational Rural Department, hence it is Development & Animal bogus one, since the Welfare Society, Akuledu letter head was named village and Post, as "Government of Singanamala (M) Andhra Pradesh" Roads Anantapuramu Dist. and Building 167 C.C.No.17622/2017 Department and below the signature the designation was mentioned as Mandal Engineering Officer, M.P. Singanamala.
337. Ex.P-36 is the letter dated 25.10.2016 written by the Y.R Subramanyam, Superintending Engineer (R&B), Anantapuramu, Andhra Pradesh wherein he confirmed as under:
"Roads and Buildings Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Anantapuramu has not issued any Building Completion Certificate of any date to Sree Sarada Educational Rural Development & Animal Welfare Society, Akuledu village, Anantapuramu District, Andhra Pradesh and infact for last five years over department has not issued any Building Completion Certificate to anyone and the Building Completion Certificate sent along with your notice is bogus and because at the bottom it mentioned that the signature & designation as Mandal Engineer Officer, M.P. Singanamala which is a Mandal Office not connected to their Department and Anantapuramu Roads & Buildings Department has a Sub-Division at Tadipatri which has jurisdiction over Akuledu village, Sinaganamala M.P and there are three Assistant Executive Engineers namely Sri. V. Ashok Kumar, Sri. T. Madhusudhan and Sri. T. Ramamurthy and there is no body in the name of Sri. Y. Sreedhar working in Tadipatri Sub-Division, Roads and Buildings Department".168 C.C.No.17622/2017
338. In view of Ex.P.35 letter written by Sri. Y.R. Subramanyam, Superintendent Engineer (R and B), Ananthapuramu, no completion certificate dated 25.08.2015 was issued by their officials for accused No.1 institution. According to Ex.P.36 letter written by Sri. Y.R. Subramanyam, Superintendent Engineer (R and B), Ananthapuramu, Andhra Pradesh wherein he clearly states that the Roads and Buildings Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Anantapuramu has not issued any Building Completion Certificate of any date to Sree Sarada Educational Rural Development & Animal Welfare Society, Akuledu village, Anantapuramu District, Andhra Pradesh and in fact for last five years their department has not issued any Building Completion Certificate to anyone and the Building Completion Certificate sent along with notice is bogus and because at the bottom it mentioned that the signature & designation as Mandal Engineer Officer, M.P. Singanamala which is a Mandal Office not connected to their Department and Anantapuramu Roads & Buildings Department has a Sub-Division at Tadipatri which has jurisdiction over Akuledu village, Sinaganamala M.P and there are three Assistant Executive Engineers namely Sri. V. Ashok Kumar, Sri. T. Madhusudhan and Sri. T. Ramamurthy and there is no body in the name of Sri. Y. Sreedhar working in Tadipatri Sub-Division, Roads and Buildings Department.
169 C.C.No.17622/2017339. In view of above evidence of P.W.7 and also Ex.P.35 and Ex.P.36 letters, Ex.P.5 (n) Building Completion Certificate was not issued by the Roads and Buildings Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh.
340. P.W.11 - Sri. Gangadhar P., the then Mandal Executive Engineer in his evidence states that he has been working as Mandal Executive Engineer Officer at MPT since 25.08.2015 and his duties were execution of mandal works and panchayath raj civil works. He further states that he has not issued Ex.P-5(n) building completion certificate dated 25.08.2015 of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Roads and Building Department and the signature found in Ex.P-5(n) is not of his signature and the seal also does not belongs to their office.
341. P.W.11 was subjected to cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 wherein he states that he does not know whether soundness certificate was issued from their office on 26.03.2015 and he has not given any statement before the CBI in respect of soundness certificate as per Ex.D.1 and he further admits that he has not given any statement before the CBI. Though P.W.11 denied his statement in Ex.D.1 made before CBI, but the said statement in respect to issuance of soundness certificate in Ex.P.27.
170 C.C.No.17622/2017342. P.W.11 specifically stated that he has not issued Ex.P.5 (n) Building Completion Certificate and it does not contain his signature and the seal found on the said certificate not belongs to their office. But, there is no cross-examination done by the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 in this regard. Hence, according to the evidence of P.W.11 also, Ex.P.5 (n) Building Completion Certificate was not issued by the Mandal Executive Engineer Office and it does not contain the signature of P.W.11 and the seal found on the said certificate not belongs to said office.
343. It is pertinent to note that on perusal of Ex.P.5
(n) Building Completion Certificate, in the letter heading it is mentioned that 'GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ROADS & BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT' and in the bottom of the said certificate the seal affixed as 'Mandal Engineering Officer M P Singanamala'. As per Ex.P.36 letter of the Superintending Engineer, Mandal Office not connected to Roads and Buildings Department. In view of the above oral evidence of P.W.4, 7 and 11 and documentary evidence in Ex.P.5 (n), Ex.P.35 and Ex.P.36 clearly established that Ex.P.5 (n) Building Completion Certificate not issued either by the 'GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ROADS & BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT' or Mandal Engineering Officer M P P Singanamala.
171 C.C.No.17622/2017344. P.W.36 Sri. P. Venugopala Rao, the then Asst. Director and Scientist 'C' at CFSL, Hyderabad deposed in his evidence that the person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked as S1 to S6 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q3 and Q5 to Q24.
345. Ex.P-113 is the specimen signatures of accused No.2 taken by the investigating officer and the specimen signatures of accused No. 2 is marked as S1 to S6.
346. P.W.35 - Sri. S. Subramanya Investigating Officer deposed in his evidence that he has collected Ex.P.113 specimen signature of accused No.2 and marked it as S1 to S6 and sent to CFSL for expert opinion.
347. As discussed above, Q8 is the disputed signature of the accused No.2 in Ex.P.5 (n) which was compared and examined with the specimen signatures of accused No.2 marked in S1 to S6 by the P.W.36 expert and as per his opinion, the person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked as S1 to S6 also wrote the red enclosed signature similarly stamped and marked Q8. Hence, as per the evidence of P.W.36, accused No.2 affixed the signature marked as Q8 in Ex.P.5 (n).
172 C.C.No.17622/2017348. Further, P.W.4 who was working as Mandal Engineering Officer in Singanamala at the relevant point of time specifically states that the seal affixed on Ex.P.5(n) not belongs to their office. Further, P.W.7 and P.W.11 also in their evidence specifically deposed that the seal affixed on Ex.P.5(n) certificate not belongs to their office.
349. P.W.35 Investigating Officer in his evidence states that M.O.5 is fake rubber stamp in the name of Mandal Engineering Officer, M P Singanamala and during the search conducted in the premises of accused No.1's Institution, the said rubber stamp was seized. Further he states that he collected relevant genuine rubber stamp from concerned authority as M.O.8. Further, P.W.30 and 32 also deposed in their evidence regarding seizer of said M.O.5 rubber stamp from the accused No. 1 Institution during search conducted by CBI.
350. Ex.P-110 is the Receipt Memo dated 19.10.2016 in respect to production of a Rubber Stamp with impressions 'MANDAL ENGINEERING OFFICER M.P.P. SINGANAMALA' - 1 Rubber Stamp and attested copy of the Register of Soundness Certificate of Singanamala (Mandal) for the date 20.03.2015 along with cover page titled Issued of Soundness Certificate- Mandal Praja Parishad, Singanamala(M)-2 sheets by the 173 C.C.No.17622/2017 PW-11 to the Investigating Officer. The rubber stamp impression was marked as S18.
351. On perusal of seal affixed on Ex.P.5(n) Building Completion Certificate, it reveals that 'Mandal Engineering Officer M P Singanamala' is mentioned. On perusal of M.O.8 seal, it reveals that 'MANDAL ENGINEERING OFFICER M.P.P. SINGANAMALA' is mentioned. Hence, it appears that there is a difference in both seal impressions. However, P.W.36 given his opinion that seal impression marked as Q30 is in the form of photo-static reproduction and it do not afford suitable data for comparison and its original needed. Admittedly, Ex.P5(n) is attested copy of the building completion certificate, hence it is not compared by P.W.36.
352. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has proved that the accused No.2 and 3 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy created the Ex.P.5 (n) attested copy of Building Completion Certificate dated 25.08.2015 and it was self attested by the accused No.2 and submitted to the visiting team members during the inspection and used the said forged document as genuine document.
353. As per the prosecution case, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy hatched by accused No.2 and 3, 174 C.C.No.17622/2017 accused No.3 approached the Sri. B. Thirupalu, Engineer and proprietor of M/s Apex Constructions, Ananthapura and obtained the building plan in the name of Sree Sarada D.El.Ed., and B.Ed., college at Sy.No.241/2 Akuledu Village, Ananthapur district showing ground floor plus three floors, whereas the available buildings in the said survey number had only ground floor plus first floor.
354. Further, as per the prosecution case, the accused No.2 and 3 also intentionally misrepresented the facts by showing that multipurpose hall with seating capacity of 200 persons and a dais with a total area of 2,234.50 square feet, a Library cum resource center with an area of 1,580.50 square feet and ICT resource center of 2,234.50 square feet etc., are available, whereas the entire buildings contained a total of eight rooms, apart from the office cum correspondent room. The forged building plan showed a total built up area of 27,536.95 square feet (2,558.26 square meter), whereas the actual available buildings measured only a total built up area of 272.18 square meter (2,930 square feet), including the temporary shed of 62.37 square meter (671 square feet).
355. As per the prosecution case, accused No.2 and 3 with the fraudulent and dishonest intention of circumventing the deficiencies pointed out by the 175 C.C.No.17622/2017 SRC/NCTE, and in pursuance of criminal conspiracy to somehow obtain the formal recognition, accused No.3 obtained another false building plan from Sri. B. Thirupalu, Engineer and Proprietor, M/s Apex Constructions, Ananthapur District showing a total built up area of 3,281 square meter (35,324.87 square feet), whereas the actual buildings had a total built- up area of 272.18 square meter (2,930 square feet), including the temporary shed of 62.37 square meter (671 square feet), which is grossly inadequate in terms of the NCTE Regulations, 2014.
356. In view of the discussion made in the above, the prosecution has established that Ex.P.5 (f) attested copy of building plan prepared by the P.W.9 was submitted by accused No.3 to the visiting team.
357. P.W.9 - Sri. Thirupalu B. consulting civil Engineer and proprietor of M/s Apex Constructions, Ananthapur has specifically deposed that on the instruction of accused No.3 he has prepared Ex.P.5 (f) and (d) building plans and it bears his signatures and his office seal. He further states that accused No.3 told him that this is an emergent case and he want plan urgently as it is a formal thing to get the permission and he will complete the building within one year, hence, he prepared the building plan in his office without visiting the spot.
176 C.C.No.17622/2017358. P.W.9 further states that as per his building plan, there are two blocks "A" block is consisting of four floor and "B" floor consisting of two floors and as per his plan, the total corporate block "A" comprising ground + 3 floors is 9.273 Sq. feet and the total built up area in the building plan as per Ex.P-5(f) is 27.536.93 square feet and as per Ex.P-5(d) the total built up area is 35.324.87 square feet.
359. P.W.9 further states that after receiving notice from CBI, he went to the site i.e., at Sy.No.241/2 of Akuledu Village and he found that only one building was in existence and there was only one block was existing in the said building and it was not completed at that time and Ex.P.39 the original building plan prepared by him in respect of building at Sy.No.241/2 of Akuledu Village. He further states that CBI officer has shown Ex.P.19 to 26 photographs to him and in Ex.P-20 photograph, accused No.3 is seen in the right side and accused No.3 paid him fees of Rs.5,000/- for preparing the building plan. He further identified the accused No.3 in videos containing in Ex.P.20 (a) and (b) CDs which were played in the Open Court.
360. Though P.W.9 was subjected to cross- examination at length by the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2, nothing has been elicited to discredit his version.
177 C.C.No.17622/2017361. P.W.9 was subjected to cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.3 wherein he states that he has not produced the license to run M/s Apex Constructions before the Court and accused No. 3 is his friend and he was working as Teacher. He further states that he does not know where the accused No. 3 was working and he does not know about the native place of the accused No. 3. Further, he states that he does not know the residential address and School address of accused No. 3. He further states that he had contact number of accused No.3, but now he does not remember the same.
362. Though it is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.9 that he has not produced the license to run the firm, but in Ex.P.5 (f), (d) and Ex.P.39 building plans, the name and seal of the firm of the P.W.9 is affixed with his signature and the same was identified by the P.W.9. Moreover, P.W.9 is the author of these building plans. Further, nothing has been elicited in his cross- examination to show that the said firm was not in existence or P.W.9 was not proprietor of the said firm. Though, license was not produced before the Court, but the oral evidence of P.W.9 and 10 and also Ex.P.5 (f), (d) and Ex.P.39 building plans clearly shows that the said 178 C.C.No.17622/2017 building plans were issued by the P.W.9. Hence, there is substance in the contention of the accused No.3.
363. Further, P.W.9 admitted in his cross- examination that his profession and profession of accused No.3 are different and as a professionalist, he has to visit the spot to prepare the building plan. He further states that he prepared the building plan due to friendship. Further, he admits that he is keeping the accounts in respect to fees received for doing work and he has not issued any receipt regarding fees of Rs.5,000/- collected by accused No. 3. He further states that the said Rs.5,000/- fee was not taken to the firm account, but he received the cash from accused No. 3 and he does not know about whether accused No. 3 is concerned with Sharada Education Society.
364. Though it is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.9 that he has to visit the spot to prepare the building plan as a professionalist, but he specifically states that he has done the said work due to friendship with accused No.3. Further, it is elicited that P.W.9 does not know the residential and school address of the P.W.3, but he states that he had contact number of accused No.3.
365. P.W.9 further states that he does not know about who has taken the Ex.P-19 to Ex.P-26 179 C.C.No.17622/2017 photographs and who has produced it and no certificate shown to him along with said photographs and the said photographs and CDs were not taken in his presence.
366. As discussed above, Ex.P.19 to 26 photographs taken by the office bearers of the accused No.1 society and photographs handed over to the P.W.3, then the primary evidence i.e. negative or original memory card is appears to be in the possession and power of the accused persons against whom these photographs sought to be proved. Hence, the secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible as per Section 65 (a) of the Evidence Act. Moreover, P.W.9 only identified the accused No.3 in the said photographs. Hence, there is no substance in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and
2.
367. Further, P.W.9 is the author of the Ex.P.5(f) and Ex.P.39/Ex.P.5(d) building plans who identified the said documents and his signatures and his office seal on the same. Further, as per the evidence of P.W.9, he visited the site at Sy.No.241/2 of Akuledu village and found existing of only one building and one block in the said building which was also incomplete. Hence, nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.9 to discredit his version.
180 C.C.No.17622/2017368. P.W.10 - Sri. Suryanarayana E., Auto CAD Operator, Ananthapuram in his evidence deposed that M/s Apex Constructions belongs to P.W.9 and he joined the said firm in the year 2011 as auto CAD operator and getting the salary of Rs.15,000/- per month and he used to draw the designs and plans for residential, commercial and industrial buildings. He further states that upon the instruction of P.W.9, he prepared Ex.P.5 (d) and (f) and Ex.P.39 building plans pertaining to Sree Sarada B.Ed., college and in that document his name mentioned as E. Suri. He further states that the person who came to the office had shown some photographs and it was night, they could not visit the site and after lapse of three years, he has visited to the site situated at Akuledu Village and at that time, he has noticed one building, which was partially completed and there were two floors constructed, consisting of ground and first floor. He further identified the accused No.3 in Ex.P.20 photograph and videos in Ex.P.20 (a) and (b) CDs. He further states the accused No.3 came to the office for getting the building plan.
369. Ex.P-101 is the Receipt Memo dated 05.05.2017 and Site Plan and Building Plan of Sree Sarada B.Ed and D.Ed college, Sy. No. 241/2 of Akuledu village and these documents were submitted by PW-10 181 C.C.No.17622/2017 Sri. T. Suryanarayana, the CAD Operator of M/s Apex Constructions to Investigating Officer.
370. P.W.10 was subjected to cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 wherein he states that he was working under P.W.9 since 2011. He admits that he has to peruse the land documents to prepare the building plan and in respect of plan in Ex.P- 5(f) & (b) and Ex.P-39 nobody instructed him to prepare building plan and his signature is not found on Ex.P-39 to show that he has prepared the said document and he does not have qualification to prepare the building plan. He further admits that he has not visited to the Akuledu Village before three years and CBI officer has not shown any documents before visiting to the site and he does not know at Akuledu Village which place he has visited.
371. P.W.10 was subjected to cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused No.3 wherein he states that he has not signed on Ex.P.5 (d) and (f) building plans pertaining to Sri Sarada Education College and he has not visited the spot before preparing the plan and in Ex.P.26, the person who are in white dress is Mr. Obulapathy and he does not know who took the photographs in Ex.P.19 to 26 and in which occasion the photographs were taken and he has seen the photographs at the first time before this court. He further states he does not know where was the original 182 C.C.No.17622/2017 films or Memory Card of Ex.P.19 to 26 and in Ex.P.20, the first person standing in photographs is look like Mr. Obulapathy and in Ex.P.22, the person sitting with white dress is Mr. Obulapathy and in Ex.P.24, the second persons standing from left side is Mr. Obulapathy and at the first time he has seen the videographs before this court in Ex.P.20 and he does not know who has videographed the videos in CD in Ex.P.20. He further states that he does not know how Mr. Obulapathy has connected to Sarada Educational Society and he does not have any authorized qualification to prepare the plans. He further admits that, in Ex.P.19 to 26, the land and building are not seen and he did not meet Mr. Obulapathy personally.
372. As per the above elicitation made in the cross- examination of P.W.10 that he has no qualification to prepare the building plans. According to the evidence of P.W.10, he was working under P.W.9 as auto CAD operator and his job was to draw the designs and plans for the buildings and based upon the building plans, he used to prepare the designs. It is pertinent to note that P.W.9 is the proprietor of the M/s Apex constructions who was the consulting civil engineer and he has prepared the plan and affixed his signature and office seal on the building plans and P.W.10 was working under the P.W.9. Hence, the job of the P.W.10 was to 183 C.C.No.17622/2017 prepare the designs based upon the building plans under the instructions of P.W.9 who was the qualified engineer. Hence, though P.W.10 was not qualified to prepare the plans but his work has to prepare the designs based on the building plans upon the instructions of P.W.9. Hence, there is no substance in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
373. Further, it is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.10 that his signature is not fund on Ex.P.39 building plan. It is pertinent to note that P.W.10 is only assistant to the P.W.9 and in Ex.P.5 (f) building plan, the name of P.W.9 as B. Thirupal and P.W.10 as E. Suri is mentioned as they have drawn the building plan. As discussed above, P.W.10 is not the proprietor of the firm or qualified civil engineer to affix his signature on the building plan and he is only assistant to the P.W.9. Hence, the signature of the P.W.10 is not found in the building plans.
374. It is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.10 that he has not visited the site before 3 years. It is pertinent to note that as per the evidence of P.W.9 and 10 itself, they have not visited the site before preparing the building plans. Hence, the question of visiting the Akuledu village before 3 years not arise at all. Further, it is elicited that in the cross-examination of P.W.10 that he has not met accused No.3 personally. As per the 184 C.C.No.17622/2017 evidence of P.W.10, accused No.3 came to their office and instructed the P.W.9 to prepare the building plan. Hence, accused No.3 did not meet the P.W.10 personally and not instructed him to prepare the plan. As discussed above, P.W.10 prepared the designs based upon the building plan on the instruction of P.W.9. Hence, the question of meeting P.W.10 personally by the accused No.3 does not arise.
375. As discussed above, Ex.P.19 to 26 photographs taken by the office bearers of the accused No.1 society and photographs handed over to the P.W.3, then the primary evidence i.e. negative or original memory card is appears to be in the possession and power of the accused persons against whom these photographs sought to be proved. Hence, the secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible as per Section 65 (a) of the Evidence Act. Moreover, P.W.10 only identified the accused No.3 in the said photographs and videos in CDs. Hence, there is no substance in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
376. As per the chief examination of P.W.10, after lapse of 3 years he visited to the site situated at Akuledu village and noticed one partially completed building which consist of ground and first floor. In his cross- examination, he admits that he does not know at 185 C.C.No.17622/2017 Akuledu village which place he has visited. But nothing has been elicited to show that he has not visited to the site situated at Akuledu village after lapse of 3 years. Though P.W.10 unable to depose that which place he has visited at Akuledu village, but he clearly states that he has visited the site situated at Akuledu village after lapse of 3 years and noticed one partially completed building consisting of ground and first floor.
377. In view of the above discussion, P.W.9 and 10 prepared the Ex.P.5(f) and Ex.P.39/Ex.P5(d) building plans on the instructions of accused No.3 without visiting the site of accused No.1 institution and at the time of investigation by the CBI, they visited the site and found existing of partially completed one building. Though P.W.10 unable to state the exact place, but P.W.9 specifically states that he visited the site at Sy.No.241/2 of Akuledu village. Hence, it shows that P.W.9 and 10 prepared the Ex.P.5(f) and Ex.P.39/Ex.P.5(d) building plans without visiting the site on the instruction of accused No.3.
378. As per discussion made above, the prosecution has established that the accused No.2 has submitted the self attested copy of the building plan to the NCTE along with applications to start D.El.Ed. and B.Ed., courses and the said self attested copy of the building plan is available in Ex.P.1 to 5 files along with 186 C.C.No.17622/2017 applications. Further, prosecution has established that while scrutinizing the applications, the P.W.1 made the remarks in original note sheets of Ex.P.3 and 5 that the photo copy of the building plan is not approved by the competent authority and the original blueprint of the building plan is not submitted and thereafter P.W.2 also made remarks in Ex.P.3 and 5 note sheets that building plan not legible and approved and built-up area as per building plan is inadequate for the 2 programs and thereafter it was placed before the SRC-NCTE and the SRC-NCTE taken the decision in its 296 th meeting that to ask the visiting team to obtain relevant land and building documents. Further, prosecution has established that Ex.P.5 (f) building plan which was self attested by the accused No.2 with the seal of accused No.1 institution was submitted by the accused No.3 to the P.W.3 and another visiting team member while inspection of the accused No.1 institution.
379. Ex.P-5(f) is self attested copy of the building plan. It reveals that the said building plan prepared by - Sri. B. Thirupal and E. Suri. Further, it reveals that the proposed buildings to run Sree Sarada B.Ed., and D.Ed., College in Sy.No.241/2 of Akuledu village belongs to accused No.1 society is consisting of A and B blocks and in A block, the ground floor total measurement 2404.82 square feet, first floor measuring 2155.79 square feet, 187 C.C.No.17622/2017 second floor measuring 2404.82 square feet and third floor measuring of 2307.03 square feet and total carpet area was 9273.06 square feet and in block B, the ground floor total carpet area is 9088.25 square feet and first floor total carpet area is 9175.62 square feet. Further, in total block A carpet area is 9273.06 square feet and block B carpet area is 18263.87 square feet and in total 27536.93 square feet. Hence, according to Ex.P.5 (f) building plan, total 27536.93 square feet proposed buildings to run the Sree Sarada B.Ed., and D.Ed., College.
380. On perusal of the self attested copy of the building plan in Ex.P.1 to 5 files and Ex.P.5 (f) building plan, it shows that the contents of both building plan are one and the same.
381. As per the evidence of P.W.3 visiting team member, according to Ex.P.5 (g) visiting team report, built-up area was totally 7455 square feet and the office bearers of accused No.1 society submitted that they are going to complete in-completed structures and during their visit, they found two floor constructed building, but according to building plan, it should have been 3 floors.
382. On perusal of the Ex.P.5 (f) attested copy of the building plan and attested copy of building plan 188 C.C.No.17622/2017 marked in Ex.P.1 to 5, the proposed building in A block consisting of Ground floor plus 3 floors and in B block consisting of Ground floor plus 2 floors. According to the evidence of P.W.3 visiting team member, they found two floor constructed building, but according to building plan, it should have been 3 floors. Hence, at the time of inspection of visiting team also, only one building consisting of 2 floor was in existence in the accused No.1 society.
383. As discussed above, the prosecution has established that P.W.1 has put up the note sheet in Ex.P.3 and 5 that built-up area is inadequate for 2 programs according to the remarks of visiting team and the building plan is not approved by the competent authority and the same was placed before the SRC-NCTE by the P.W.2 and the said SRC-NCTE in its 303 rd meeting directed to issue show cause notice to the accused No.1 institution for compliance of deficiencies.
384. Further as discussed above, the prosecution has established that after issuance of show cause notice, the accused No.2 has written a letter dated 17.02.2016 marked as Ex.P.5 (c) to the Regional Director of NCTE and submitted the Ex.P.5 (d) blue print of building plan approved by the Panchayath Secretary, Akuledu village to show that built-up area is adequate for running for 189 C.C.No.17622/2017 two programs and building plan is approved by the concerned authority.
385. Ex.P-5 (c) is the original letter dated 17.02.2016 and it reveals that the accused No. 2 being a Secretary of accused No. 1 Society has written a letter to the Regional Director, NCTE, Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru wherein he states that they are enclosing adequate proof documents for the requirements (1). Built up area is adequate for running and programs for B.Ed building 'A' block 17061.00 Sq. ft and for D.El.Ed 'B' block 18263.87 Sq.ft, (2). BP is approved by the concern authority which Panchayath Secretary, (3). Asbestos roofing is removed. Further, the enclosures mentioned as Blue Print(xerox), Blue Print approved by the concerned authority and original C.D.
386. Ex.P-5(d) is copy of the building plan and Ex.P-39 is the original building plan which was approved by the Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayath, Singanamala (Mdl.). It reveals that the said building plan prepared by PW-9 Sri. B. Thirupal. Further, it contains the seal and signature of the Panchayath Secretary, Akuledu village, Singanamala (Mdl.) and also seal of the accused No. 1 Society and signature of the accused No. 2.
190 C.C.No.17622/2017387. As per Ex.P.39 original building plan and Ex.P.5 (d) is copy of Ex.P.39 building plan reveals that plan showing the details of existing buildings to run Sri Sarada B.Ed., and D.Ed., College in Sy.No.241/2 of Akuledu village belongs to accused No.1 society is consisting of A and B blocks and in A block, the ground floor total measurement 4278.00 square feet, first floor measuring 4227.60 square feet, second floor measuring 4278.00 square feet and third floor measuring of 4278.00 square feet and total carpet area was 17061.00 square feet and in block B, the ground floor total carpet area is 9088.25 square feet and first floor total carpet area is 9175.62 square feet. Further, in total block A carpet area is 17061.00 square feet and block B carpet area is 18263.87 square feet and in total 35324.87 square feet. Hence, according to Ex.P.5 (d)/Ex.P.39 building plan, total 35324.87 square feet existing buildings to run the Sree Sarada B.Ed., and D.Ed., College. Further, it contains the signature of accused No.2 with seal as a Secretary of accused No.1 society and signature of the Panchayath Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayath, Singanamala (Mdl) with office seal.
388. In view of the above discussion, it clearly shows that the accused No.2 and 3 have obtained Ex.P.5
(f) building plan showing the proposed built-up area of 27536.95 square feet from the P.W.9 and submitted to 191 C.C.No.17622/2017 the visiting team and when show cause notice was issued by the NCTE as built-up area is inadequate to run 2 programs, then accused No.2 and 3 have obtained another building plan in Ex.P.39/Ex.P.5 (d) showing the existing built-up area of 35324.87 square feet from P.W.9 and submitted to the NCTE by the accused No.2.
389. P.W.5 - Upendra Rao the then Assistant Engineer, CPWD, Bengaluru stated in his evidence that as Assistant Engineer, his duties and responsibilities were supervision and execution of CPWD works and at that time, apart from this work, he was assisting the Executive Engineer in taking the evaluation of property by taking measurements and the CBI officer came to the office of his Higher Officer, in turn his Higher Officer instructed him to attend the CBI office in the year 2016 and as per the directions of his Higher Officer, he went to CBI office.
390. P.W.5 further states that after attending CBI office, CBI officers took him to Ananthapura and they went to Akuledu Village of Ananthapura and at that place, CBI officers have conducted a search and prepared Ex.P.28 search list and it bears his signature as Ex.P-28(a). He further states that Ex.P.29 spot observation mahazar dated 05.07.2016 bears his signature as Ex.P-29(a) and the CBI officer has prepared this document as per his dictation. He further states that 192 C.C.No.17622/2017 Ex.P-29 was prepared in respect of three buildings, (1) ground floor consisted of computer room and correspondence room (2) 1st floor consisted of teachers residence and one class room (3) temporary shed and the total of all above structures including temporary structure was 270.18 square meter and the total built up area of the ground and 1st floor are 125.16 square meter and the total built up area of 2nd building is 84.65 square meter and the total built up area of 3rd temporary structure is 62.37 square meter. He further states that Ex.P.30 building layout plan bears his signature as Ex.P-30(a).
391. P.W.5 was subjected to cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 wherein he states that himself and Executive Engineer went to the CBI office and he has perused the original title deeds on the spot and he has seen plan, sale deed, layout plan, building plan, building elevation certificate on the spot. He further states that there was no hurdle for him to state the above facts to the Investigating Officer in his statement. He further states that he cannot say which title deeds he has seen at that time and he cannot say the property number and details, which they have visited and he cannot say the measurement of the property and he has not seen any road and buildings. Further he states that he has seen only three buildings, except this, 193 C.C.No.17622/2017 he has not seen any building and the Regional Director or officials of Education Department have not accompanied with him and he has not verified the previous inspection report done by the inspection committee and provisional recognition letter. He further states that he does not know regarding the building structure, existed earlier to previous inspection report prepared by the inspection team and the search list was typed at the spot and his name is not mentioned as witness in the search list Ex.P-29.
392. It is pertinent to note that P.W.5 being Asst. Engineer of CPWD was accompanied the CBI officers during the search and seizure and drawing of spot observation mahazar and Ex.P.30 rough sketch at Akuledu village and at that time, he saw the sale deed, building plan etc. Further, Ex.P.28 to 30 prepared on 05.07.2016 and P.W.5 examined before the Court on 18.08.2021. P.W.5 given the evidence before the after lapse of 5 years, hence, it appears that he is unable to say about property number, details and measurements of the property. But he specifically deposed that he went to Akuledu village and Ex.P.28 and 29 prepared by the CBI officers and Ex.P.30 rough sketch signed by him and existence of 3 buildings including temporary shed at the spot to the total extent of 270.18 square meter.
194 C.C.No.17622/2017393. P.W.5 further states in his cross-examination that generally the tape is using to measure the land and they have to see the sale deed to conduct the measurement of any property or vacant place. He further states that he does not know other than the sale deed, what documents he has to look into and to ascertain the land for identification of land, generally they used to take the assistance of revenue officials and he has not made any identification of the property. He admits that every records and statement are made at the instance of CBI office and he read and understood the regulations of NCTE and Ex.P-29 spot mahazar was prepared at the instance of CBI. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P-29 was prepared in the office of CBI. He admits that the identification number of property number is not shown in Ex.P-30 and he cannot say in which property the sketch was prepared and he does not know the total measurement of the property of Sharada Educational Society. Though he admits that Ex.P-28 to Ex.P-30 were created for the purpose of this case, but he further states that the CBI prepared it. He admits that there is a technology called as total station survey to measure properties and apart from this method, there is a chain survey and tachometry and there is one more survey i.e., satellite geo stationary survey to measure the properties. He further states that to measure the properties, he has 195 C.C.No.17622/2017 not followed any of the above four methods. He admits that revenue documents are necessary for proper measurement and identification and he has not obtained any revenue documents to measure property of Sarada Educational Society.
394. Though it is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.5 that Ex.P.28 to 30 were created for the purpose of this case, but, P.W.5 further voluntarily states that CBI prepared the said documents. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P.28 search list and Ex.P.29 spot observation mahazar prepared by the CBI officer in the presence of P.W.5 and other independent witnesses. P.W.5 specifically denied the suggestions that he does not know where accused No.1 society's property is situated and he has not visited the spot.
395. P.W.8 - Sri. Lakshminarasimhaiah G., Executive Engineer, CPWD states in his evidence that on 04.07.2016, his Chief Engineer had received letter from CBI office to send one officer to the CBI office and accordingly, Chief Engineer deputed him to attend CBI office. He further states on 05.07.2016, he went to the CBI office at Ganganagar, Bengaluru and thereafter, the CBI officer took him and P.W.5 to Akuledu, Ananathapura Dist., and the CBI officer asked him measure the land and building structure of the College by name Sri Sharadha B.Ed. And D.Ed. College and 196 C.C.No.17622/2017 accordingly, they measured the land and building structure of the said premises and Videograph also recorded by the CBI officer.
396. P.W.8 further states that CBI officer prepared the search list and observation mahazar as per Ex.P.37 and 38 and at the time of his inspection, he found two permanent buildings and one temporary building and the total built up area of the 1st structure was 125.16 square meter and the total built up area of the 2nd structure ground was 84.65 square meter and the 2nd structure was not having roof, hence, that area is not taken on account. He further states that the built-up area of the 3rd temporary structure was 62.37 square meter and the total built up area of all the 3 structure including temporary structure was 272.18 square meter and all these 3 buildings were situated within the boundary walls and the total land area of the college was 1119.30 square meters.
397. P.W.8 was subjected to cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 wherein he admits that he has not seen documents pertaining to Sharadha Educational Society and its institutions. He denied the suggestion that to measure any structure, property documents are required. He admits that he does not know the property number before proceeding to the spot for measuring the land and does not know the 197 C.C.No.17622/2017 details of the land, which they had measured. He further states that there is no different technologies to measure the structure.
398. P.W.8 further admits that to measure the land, there is a technology called total station survey. But he denied that geo stationary technology are using to identify the structure and to measure the structure. He further states that he does not know whether the land, which he inspected was converted or not and does not know the total extent of the land stands in the name of Sharadha Educational Society. He further states that the measurement was done by him. He admits that he has not taken the assistance of revenue officials at the time of measurement. It is pertinent to note that P.W.8 being Executive Engineer accompanied the CBI officers to measure the disputed building and he has taken the measurement of buildings at the spot and prepared rough sketch. At the time of measurement, he could not seen the land conversion documents and the properties stands in the name of accused No.1 society. He is not a proper person to depose in this regard. He specifically states that the CBI officer took him and P.W.5 to Akuledu Village and he found 2 permanent building and one temporary building and measured the same and signed the documents prepared by the CBI officers.
198 C.C.No.17622/2017399. On perusal of evidence of P.W.5 and 8, it clearly shows that CBI officers took them to property of accused No.1 society and they have measured the existing 3 buildings including temporary shed and total built-up area of ground and first floor of first structure is 125.16 square meter and total built-up area of second structure is 84.65 square meter and total built-up area of third structure i.e. temporary shed is 62.37 square meter and Ex.P.28/Ex.P.37 and Ex.P.29/Ex.P.38 were prepared by the CBI. Further P.W.5 identified the Ex.P.30 rough sketch as it was prepared at the spot.
400. P.W.30 - Sri. M. Mallikarjun, TTI, Guntkal in his evidence deposed that on 04.07.2016 his higher officer had given instruction to him to accompany CBI team and accordingly, on 05.07.2016 morning he went to Ananthapur and met CBI officers and the CBI officer instructed him to come with their vehicle to go for search and then, the CBI inspector, other officials, himself and other independent witnesses went to the premises of Sharada Education Society and the CBI officers had conducted search at the premises of Sharada Education Society and prepared Ex.P.28 search list and they have also prepared Ex.P.29 spot observation mahazar. He further states that as per the said search list, the CBI have seized 7 items of documents and 6 rubber stamps and the rubber stamp of Panchayat Secreatry Akuledu 199 C.C.No.17622/2017 Gram Panchayath and Mandal Engineering Officer, M.P. Singanamala were seized on the day of search. He further states that the rubber stamp of Head Master Z.P. high school, Koppalakond, Garladinna, Head Master M.P.P. school, Madirepalli, Principal Sri Venkateshwara Degree College and round rubber stamp of Sri Venkateshwara Degree College, Tadpatri were also seized during the search.
401. P.W.30 further states that Ex.P.87 one bunch of document containing the affidavit, inspection report, visiting team report and connected documents and Ex.P.88 another bunch of documents containing sale deeds, certificate of registration of Sharada Education Society and other connected documents were seized. He further states that on the same day the C.B.I. I.O. has also prepared Ex.P.29 spot observation mahazar and taken his signatures on Ex.P.28 to 30.
402. P.W.30 further states that 05.07.2016 again at evening the CBI officers have conducted search in the residential premises of Sheshadri Reddy and seized one document and the I.O. had prepared Ex.P.89 search list and taken his signature and the officers have seized the documents and material objects in his presence and after completion of all the procedures he left the spot.
200 C.C.No.17622/2017403. P.W.30 was subjected to cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 wherein he states that the CBI had not issued any written order to him to participate in the search proceedings and he has seen the building, office premises and class room of Sri Sarada Education Society and the school was running in the premises of Sri Sarada Education Society, when they visited the school. He further states that he has not gone through the documents seized by CBI and he has not aware of for what purpose the seals were used in the school. It is pertinent to note that P.W.30 accompanied the CBI officer to conduct search and seizure at the premises of accused No.1 society and residential premises of accused No.2 and whatever the materials available at the spot with respect to this case were seized by the investigating officer. Hence, P.W.30 who is a independent witness may not aware about the purpose of the seizure of seals which were used in the school.
404. P.W.30 further states that now he does not remember in which place he has signed in Ex.P.29. He further states that the search was conducted on 05.07.2016 and it was commenced at morning 10.00 am and completed at 04.00 pm and he does not know about where the print out of Ex.P.28 was taken and does not remember who took the printout of Ex.P.28. He further 201 C.C.No.17622/2017 states that the printout of Ex.P.28 was not taken in his presence. Further, he admits that he has signed the Ex.P.28 and spot observation mahazar in the hotel.
405. P.W.34 - Sri. V.N.Raju, Addl. S.P., deposed in his evidence that on 05.07.2016, in pursuance of the search warrant issued by the Hon'ble 21 st Special Court for CBI cases dated 04.07.2016, CW.41 Sri. S. Subramanian had conducted the search proceedings at the office of the correspondent room of Sri Sarada B. Ed College, Akuledu Village, Singanamala Taluk, Ananthapuram and he was party of the search proceedings conducted on 05.07.2016 at 07.50 hours to 14.00 hours and during the search two independent witnesses were present and in their presence 8 items were seized. He further states that after that, the search list was prepared in the computer system and printout taken outside the search premises and after taken the printout, the search list was read over to the search team and correctness were confirmed and after that, all the members of search team also signed on the search list in Ex.P.28 and 6 rubber stamps were seized during search proceedings. He further states that during the searches, a spot observation mahazar was prepared and the contents of the mahazar were confirmed by the members of the team and the printout of mahazar also taken outside and after confirming the correctness of the 202 C.C.No.17622/2017 printout taken, the mahazar witness signed on the Ex.P.29 mahazar.
406. P.W.34 was subjected to cross-examination examiantion by the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 wherein he states he does not know, the names of the search team, therefore he has not stated in his examination in chief.
407. P.W.35 - Sri. S. Subramanya Investigating Officer, in his evidence deposed that on 04.07.2016 he obtained the search warrant from the Hon'ble 21st A.C.C.&S.J., Bengaluru for conducting search and on 05.07.2016 he along with Sri. V.N. Raju Dy.S.P., and other CBI team and P.W.5 and 8 went to the premises of accused No.1 college and conducted the searches and CPWD Engineers took measurement of the land area and building in the college in the presence of accused No.2 and independent witnesses and drawn the spot observation mahazar and found that Sree Sarada Vidyanikethan English and Telugu medium school was functioning at the college address and no college in the name of Sree Sarada B.Ed., college was functioning and only name sign banner was found and there are 3 building structures including the temporary shed were in existence and total built-up area of the same was 272.18 square meter or 2930 square feet and videograph was 203 C.C.No.17622/2017 made and transferred the videos to 2 DVDs marked as A and A1.
408. In the cross-examination of P.W.35 he states that Ex.P.28 and Ex.P.29 printouts are taken from their office laptop in a private shop and he has not recorded the statement of the private shop keeper where he had took the printout of Ex.P.28 and 29.
409. It is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.30 that printout of Ex.P.28 taken in a hotel and he signed the Ex.P.28 and 29 in the hotel. As per the evidence of P.W.35 investigating officer, they have taken the printout of Ex.P.28 and 29 in a private shop. In Ex.P.29 it is mentioned in the bottom of the document as there is no printer available in college and accused No.2 took the CBI team and others to Ananthapur and got printout in a shop. Further, in Ex.P.28 is also it is mentioned that the printout of the search list is being taken from outside since no printer is available in the premises. Hence, the printout has been taken outside the premises of accused No.1 society as printer was not available. Though, it is elicited in the cross-examination of the P.W.30 that he has signed the Ex.P.28 and 29 documents at hotel, but nothing has been elicited to discredit the evidence of P.W.30 that search and seizure and spot observation mahazar prepared in the premises of accused No.1 society. According to the evidence of 204 C.C.No.17622/2017 P.W.35, Ex.P.28 and Ex.P.29 printouts are taken from their office laptop in a private shop. As per the recitals of Ex.P.28 and 29 documents itself, printout taken from the outside since no printer available in the premises. Hence, it appears that the witnesses have affixed their signatures, after taking the printout from the office laptop in the outside of the accused No.1 society's premises.
410. P.W.32 - Sri. K.V. Jagannatha Reddy, Head Constable CBI, stated in his evidence that on 05.07.2016 he had participated in search proceedings along with C.W.36 Sri V.N. Raju in connection with this case and on 05.07.2016 at about 07.50 hours they have conducted the search of office cum correspondence room Sri Sarada Educational Trust Akuledu Village, Singanamala Taluk, Ananthapur District along with two independent witnesses and after conducting the search, CW.36 has prepared the search list as per Ex.P.28 and they have seized 7 items of documents and 6 rubber stamps and on the same day, they have prepared the spot observation mahazar at the premises of Sri Sarada Vidhaynikethan English and Telugu medium School and Sri Sarada D.Ed and B.Ed Education, Akuledu Village, Singanamala Taluk, Ananthapur District as per Ex.P.29 and his signatures taken on the said documents.
205 C.C.No.17622/2017411. P.W.32 further states that on the same day, at about 04.00 PM, the CBI team had conducted the search in the residential premises of Sri S. Seshadri Reddy at Nethaji Govt. High School, Ananthapur and the I.O. of CBI had prepared the search list as Ex.P.89 and one document was seized.
412. P.W.32 was subjected to cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 wherein he stated that he has not narrated the details of the documents seized during the search in his examination in chief. He denied the suggestion that he does not know the contents of Ex.P.28, 29 and 89.
413. Ex.P-28 is the original search list and Ex.P-37 is the copy of the search list in respect to search conducted on 05.07.2016 at office cum correspondent room of Sri Sarada B.Ed college, Plot No. 241/2, 2 nd street, Akuledu village and seized the documents with 6 rubber stamps showing the impressions as under:
(a) Head Master, Z.P. High School, Koppalakond, Garladinna(M), Anandpur (Dt).
(b) Head Master, M.P.P School, Madirepalli (V), Singanamala (M).
(c) Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayat, Singanamala (Mdl.).
(d) Principal, Sri Venkateswara Degree College, TADPATRI-515411.206 C.C.No.17622/2017
(e) Mandal Engineering Officer, M.P. Singanamala.
(f) Round Rubber stamp having impression Sri. Venkateswara Degree College, TADPATRI (with date column) with specimen seal impressions on two sheets of paper.
414. Ex.P-29 is the original spot observation mahazar dated 05.07.2016 and Ex.P-38 is the copy of spot observation mahazar conducted by the Investigating Officer at Sree Sarada Vidyanikethan English and Telugu medium school and Sree Sarada B.Ed/D.El.Ed college of education, Plot No. 241/2, 2nd street, Akuledu village in the presence of the accused No. 2, PW-5 Sri. Upendra Rao, PW-8 Sri. Lakshminarasimhaiah. G, PW-30 Sri. M. Mallikarjuna, CW-35 Sri. K. Umashankar and other CBI officers and Police constables. It is mentioned in the said Mahazar that during the search conducted in the premises of Sree Sarada B.Ed./D.El.Ed college of Education on 05.07.2016, the measurements of the land area and the built-up area of the building was taken by the Executive Engineer and the Assistant Engineer of CPWD in the presence of the independent witnesses. Further it is mentioned that there is no college functioning at the given address and only a school named Sree Sarad Vidyaniketan English & Telugu Medium School with classes 1 to 7 is being run and the premises has a main entry with Gate facing East side 207 C.C.No.17622/2017 and without any name board and there are three buildings situated within the premises namely (A) G+1 structure situated opposite to the Main Gate along west side, (B) Ground floor & first floor (First floor having only outer walls without roof) along south side and (C) A temporary shed with asbestos cement sheet roofing. Further, the measurement of each room in Ground floor and First floor is mentioned in meters and further it is mentioned that total built-up area is 272.18 square meters(2930 square feet) including the temporary shed of 62.37 square meters. Further, it is mentioned that the process of measurement was recorded by Sri. P. Sasi Kumar, H.C using Sony Handicam and the recordings were transferred to two DVDs through Sony D.V Direct and the DVDs were marked as A and A1 respectively. Further it is mentioned that a rough sketch of the plan was also drawn by the CPWD Engineer and attached to the mahazar.
415. Ex.P-30 is the original spot rough sketch of the Sree Sarada Vidyanikethana E.M School and Sree Sarada B.Ed and D.El.Ed College, Akuledu village prepared by the P.W.8. The copy of the spot rough sketch marked along with Ex.P.38.
416. Ex.P.37 and 38 are the copies of Ex.P.28 and 29 original search list and spot observation mahazar and both are one and the same. Ex.P.37 and 38 were marked 208 C.C.No.17622/2017 subject to objection. Admittedly Ex.P.37 and 38 are the copies. However, the original of the Ex.P.37 and 38 are already marked as Ex.P.28 and 29 respectively.
417. Ex.P-87 is the bunch of documents containing the format of affidavit, copies of the Inspection Report, Visiting Team report, building completion certificate dated 25.08.2015, original proceedings of the Director, SCERT, Andhra Pradesh dated 16.03.2016, original approved staff list, original Soundness Certificate dated 26.03.2015 etc. Ex.P- 88 is the copies of the Gift Deed, undertaking correspondence letter, Certificate of Registration, Memorandum of Association, original letters dated 18.01.2016 and 26.08.2015 written by the PW-2 to Correspondent Secretary of accused No. 1 Society etc. Ex.P-87(a) is the signature of the PW-30.
418. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.5, 8, 30, 32, 34 and 35 and Ex.P.28 to 30 documents, it shows that the CBI officers have conducted the search and seizure in the premises of accused No.1 society on 05.07.2016 in the presence of P.W.5, 8 and 30 and other independent witnesses and at that time P.W.32 and 34 accompanied the P.W.35 and they have seized 7 documents and 6 rubber stamps and also drawn the spot observation mahazar in respect existence of buildings and P.W.5 and 8 measured the said buildings and prepared the rough sketch.
209 C.C.No.17622/2017419. Admittedly, there are minor discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.5, 8, 30 as they are the witnesses to the search and seizure and spot observation mahazar which was conducted on 05.07.2016 and P.W.5 and 8 have given evidence before the Court on 18.08.2021 and 12.10.2021 respectively after lapse of 5 years and P.W.30 given evidence before the Court on 25.01.2023 after lapse of more than 6 years. Hence, minor discrepancies bound to occur.
420. P.W.12 - Sri. P. Venugopala Gupta, Mandal Surveyor, in his evidence states that he worked as Mandal surveyor in Singanamala Mandal in the year 2013 and as Mandal surveyor, his duties is to demarcation of Lands and sub-division of lands. He further states that the RDO, Ananthapur had instructed him to go to Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthpur District to identify the buildings pertaining to the Sharada Education Society and as per the instruction for RDO, he visited the spot and prepared the sketch and took the photographs. Further he identified Ex.P.40 letter dated 25.10.2016 written by Sri.A.Malola, RDO, Ananthpur, addressed to S.P, CBI regarding his deputation to inspection of the building and Ex.P.41 his report with regarding the inspection of the site dated 19.10.2016 and Ex.P.42 field measurement sketch pertaining to field / survey No. 241/2 of Akuledu village 210 C.C.No.17622/2017 and Ex.P.43 two Photographs which were taken at the time of survey. He further identified Ex.P.44 Coordinate sketch of Survey No.2/41 of Akuledu village and Ex.P.45 Adangal Extract of Sy.No.241 of Akuledu village, issued by V.R.O. of Tharimala village in-charge of Akuledu village and Ex.P.46 report submitted by Sri.Nallappa, Village Revenue Officer to Tahasildar, regarding Sy.No.241 of Akuledu village and Ex.P.47 Re-settlement Register of Akuledu village and Ex.P.48 letter of Sri.Malola addressed to S.P., CBI., regarding conversion of land bearing Sy.No.241/2 of Akaledu village. He further identified his signatures and signatures of his higher officer on these documents.
421. P.W.12 further states that he had inspected the site in Sy.No.241/2 of Akaledu village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthpur District and noticed that the building in the name of Sri.Sharada English Medium Vidyanikethana School and Sharada B.Ed., College was existing and the said building consisting ground floor and 1st floor and the name of the occupant is not known and the total measurement of the said land bearing Sy.No.241/2, is 7.43 Acres and there was a boundary for the properties of the school. He further states that he has measured the same and mentioned in sketch in Ex.P.42 and as per Ex.P.45, the said land is dry land and name of owners of the said land is 211 C.C.No.17622/2017 D.Diwan, Smt.Arakulla Begh, Smt.Mahaboobbee, Smt.D.Fathima, P.Allabakash and Venkatasubbaiah and the said land patta also standing in their names only.
422. P.W.12 was subjected to cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 wherein he states that he has conducted inspection and his job is to conduct the survey and he is aware about survey manual of Andrapradesh State and as per manual it is mandate to issue notice to the owners of that particular Survey numbers and he has not issued notice before conducting survey. He further states that he has conducted the survey as per the instruction given by the Tahasildar.
423. P.W.12 further admits that he has to conduct survey to identify any survey number or property as per survey manual of Andrapradesh State and he has not conducted survey of Land bearing Sy.No.241 and Sy.No.241/2 of Akaledu village. Further he denied the suggestion that he is giving false evidence before the Court without conducting any survey of land bearing Sy.No.241 and Sy.No.241/2 of Akaledu village. He further admits that the correct measurement can be said only on the basis of Tippani copy and he further states that Tippani copy is called field measurement book and he has no any problem to state before the I.O. that F.M.B. and Tippani one and same.
212 C.C.No.17622/2017424. As per the evidence of P.W.12, he visited the accused No.1 society as per the instruction RDO, Ananthapura and prepared the Ex.P.41 report and Ex.P.42 sketch and taken the Ex.P.43 two photographs.
425. Ex.P-40 is the letter dated 25.10.2016 written by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the CBI in respect to deputation of Village Revenue Officer, Akuledu village and Mandal Surveyor, Singanamala on 28.10.2016 to attend before the Superintendent of Police, Head of Branch, CBI to record present status of the land in Sy. No. 241/2, Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, Andhra Pradesh along with recorded proof and what is the structure available in Sy. No. 241/2, Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, Andhra Pradesh along with the recorded proof. Ex.P.40(a) is the signature of RDO.
426. Ex.P-41 is the report submitted by the PW-12 Sri. P. Venugopal Guptha that he has inspected the Sy. No. 241/2 of Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapuramu District and he has observed the building constructed in Sy. No. 241/2 of Akuledu village and the same is shown in the enclosed sketch for reference and Ex.P-41(a) is the signature of PW-12.
213 C.C.No.17622/2017427. Ex.P-42 is the Field Measurement Sketch of Sy. No. 241/2 of Akuledu village prepared by the PW-12 and Ex.P-42(a) is the signature of the PW-12.
428. Ex.P-43 are the two photographs of the building which were marked subject to objection that the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act is not furnished. Admittedly, these photographs are secondary evidence and it was taken by the P.W.12 during the survey of the land, but he has not produced the certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act. Hence, these photographs cannot be looked into in the absence of the said certificate.
429. Ex.P-44 is the co-ordinate sketch of Sy. No. 241 of Akuledu village prepared by the PW-12 and Ex.P- 44(a) is the signature of the PW-12. Ex.P-45 is the Adangal Extract of Sy. No. 241 of Akuledu village and Ex.P-45(a) is the signature of V.R.O. Ex.P-46 is the report of Village Revenue Officer, Tharimala village of Singanamala Mandal. Ex.P.46(a) is the signature of V.R.O. Ex.P-47 is the Re-settlement Register of Akuledu village.
430. Ex.P-48 is the true copy of the letter dated 04.10.2016 written by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapuramu to CBI that 'After verifying the office 214 C.C.No.17622/2017 records, it is found that Sri. S. Sheshadri Reddy, Secretary and Correspondent, Sree Sarada Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society, Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal, Anatapuram District has not applied for conversion of land in respect of the land in Sy.No. 241/2, extent 01 acre of Akuledu village of Singanamala Mandal, hence, issue of conversion proceedings from this office does not arise and the conversion proceedings sent along with the reference cited above has not been issued from this office and it is fake'. Further PW-13 identified the signature of Superintendent by name Sri. Laxminarayana and the same is marked as Ex.P-48(a).
431. Of course, there are some minor discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. But it is the duty of the Court to separate chaff from grain. Therefore, testimony of P.W.5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 30, 32 and 34 is cogent, clinching and reliable. Nothing has been elicited in their cross examination to discredit their evidence.
432. The 2 original NCTE, SRC, Format 12, Questionnaire (to be filled by the Institution) u/s 14 and 15 of the NCTE Act 1993 are marked in Ex.P-5 at sheet No. 99 to 112. These two documents reveals that the name of the Institution and address as Sree Sarada B.Ed and D.El.Ed College of Education, Akuledu village and 215 C.C.No.17622/2017 Post, Singanamala Mandal, Anantapuram District, SRCAPP3400 and SRCAPP3401. Further it reveals in column 5(a) Teacher Education Program as under:
Sl. Name of Address of the NCTE Intak Name of Built up No the building where Order No. e the space(Sq.
. Course the course is and Date affiliating mts/sq.ft
being run body
1. D.El.Ed Akuledu SRCAPP34 50 B.Ed 7445
00 B.Ed NCTE
2. B.Ed Akuledu SRCAPP34 50+5 D.El.ED 7445
01D.El.Ed 0 NCTE
433. Further in the said Format 12 Questionnaire at column No. 6 also the built up area mentioned as 7445 square feet for B.Ed and E.El.Ed course and at column No. 8, the Sy. No. 241/2, Akuledu village, measuring 01 acre land is mentioned. Further in the said document at column No. 9 building, the carpet area of the class rooms, multipurpose hall, library etc mentioned in square feet. Further, the photograph of the building also affixed which reveals that ground floor and first floor building is available. Further in these two documents, the declaration made by the accused No. 2 with his signature and seal of accused No. 1 Institution separately that each statement and/or contents of the declaration and/or documents certificates submitted along with the declaration by the undersigned are absolutely true, correct and authentic and in the event of any statements documents made in the declaration subsequently turning out to be incorrect or false the 216 C.C.No.17622/2017 undersigned has understood and accepted that such mis-declaration in respect to any content of the declaration shall also be treated as a gross violation of NCTE Act, 1993 and regulations thereby rendering the undersigned liable for action as per law.
434. As per the above two Format-12 questionnaires, the accused No.2 stated built-up area 7445 is available for B.Ed., course and 7445 is available for D.El.Ed., course and also declaration submitted. But, whether 7445 built-up area is in square meter or square feet is not mentioned. The signatures of the accused No.2 in the said declarations marked as Q9 and Q10. As discussed above, the P.W.36 in his evidence states that the persons who wrote the S1 to S6 also wrote the signatures marked in Q9 and Q10. S1 to S6 are specimen signatures of accused No.2. Hence, accused No.2 wrote the signature marked in Q9 and Q10 in Format-12.
435. As discussed above, P.W.18 and 20 in their evidence states that there was sufficient facilities were there to start D.Ed., college and as per Ex.P.71 inspection report prepared by the P.W.18 and 19, the built-up area mentioned as 3282.98 square meters. It is pertinent to note that the accused No.2 in Format-12 submitted to the SRC-NCTE declared that built-up area is 7445 each for both courses. Though, the square meter 217 C.C.No.17622/2017 or Square feet is not mentioned specifically, then according to the said Format-12, total built-up area is 14890. Hence, this total built-up area also not tallied with built-up area mentioned in Ex.P.71 by P.W.18 and
19.
436. As discussed above, Q24 marked in Ex.P.39 is the signature of the accused No.2 which was compared and examined with the specimen signatures of accused No.2 marked in S1 to S6 by the P.W.36 expert and as per his opinion, the person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked as S1 to S6 also wrote the red enclosed signature similarly stamped and marked Q24. Hence, as per the evidence of P.W.36, accused No.2 affixed the signature marked as Q24 in Ex.P.39.
437. Though, P.W.18 and 20 in their evidence states that there was sufficient facilities were there to start D.Ed., college, but the evidence of P.W.5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 30, 32, 34 and 35 clearly shows that actual building had a total built-up area of 272.18 square meter including the temporary shed. The testimony of P.W.5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 30, 32, 34 and 35 is cogent, clinching and reliable. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that prosecution has established that in pursuance of criminal conspiracy to somehow obtain the formal recognition, accused No.3 obtained another false 218 C.C.No.17622/2017 building plan from P.W.9 showing a total built up area of 3,281 square meter (35,324.87 square feet), whereas the actual buildings had a total built-up area of 272.18 square meter (2,930 square feet), including the temporary shed of 62.37 square meter (671 square feet), which is grossly inadequate in terms of the NCTE Regulations, 2014 and submitted to the SRC-NCTE.
438. As per the prosecution case, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, in order to falsely show that the building plan was issued by the competent authority, on the instruction of accused No.3, the accused No.2 got the seal i.e. rubber stamp, made in the name of Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayat, Singanamala (Mdl.) and affixed the same on the building plan.
439. The original seal and signature of the Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayat, Singanamala (Mdl.) is found on Ex.P.39 original building plan and Ex.P.5 (d) is the copy of the same. The original seal of Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayat, Singanamala (Mdl.) is marked as Q29.
440. Ex.P-109 is the Receipt Memo dated 15.10.2016 in respect to production of a Rubber Stamp with impressions 'Panchayat Secretary, AKULEDU G.P., Singanamala (M), Anantapuramu (Dist.)' - 1 Rubber Stamp by C.W.13 - K. Raja Shekhar, Panchayath 219 C.C.No.17622/2017 Secretary, Mandal Panchayath Office to the Investigating Officer in the presence of Sri. H.G Nagaraj, Senior Manager (Rtd), Bank of Baroda. The rubber stamp impression was marked as S17.
441. As per the order sheet, it is reported by the CBI that C.W.13 was died on 04.03.2019 and death certificate also furnished in this regard.
442. Ex.P-111 is the two sheets of the Seal Impressions of seized rubber stamps from the officer of Correspondent, Sree Sarada Vidyanikethan, Akuledu village, Anantapur on 05.07.2016 during the searches.
The seal impression of Panchayat Secretary Akuledu Gram Panchayath Singanamala (Mdl.) is marked as S13. The seal impression of Panchayat Secretary Akuledu Gram Panchayath Singanamala (Mdl.) is marked as S14. The seal impression of Mandal Engineering Officer, M P Singanamala is marked as S15. The seal impression of Mandal Engineering Officer, M P Singanamala is marked as S16.
443. As per the evidence of P.W.36, the red enclosed seal impressions stamped and marked Q29 tally with the blue enclosed sample seal impressions similarly stamped and marked S13 and S14 and the red enclosed seal impressions stamped and marked Q29 do not tally with the blue enclosed sample seal impressions 220 C.C.No.17622/2017 similarly stamped and marked S17. Hence, as per the expert opinion, the seal marked as Q29 in Ex.P.39 tallies with the samples seals marked S13 and S14 in Ex.P.111. The said seal impressions on Ex.P.111 marked as S13 and S14 were taken from the seized M.O.3 rubber stamp. Further, as per the expert opinion, the seal impression marked as Q29 do not tally with the sample seal impression marked as S17 in Ex.P.109. The sample seal impression taken on Ex.P.109 receipt memo from M.O.7. As discussed above, the prosecution witnesses specially deposed before the Court about the seizure of the M.O.3 and 5 rubber stamp from the office of accused No.2 on 05.07.2016 during the search and seizure as per Ex.P.28.
444. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has established that in order to falsely show that the building plan was issued by the competent authority, the accused No.2 got the seal i.e. rubber stamp, made in the name of Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayat, Singanamala (Mdl.) and affixed the same on the Ex.P.39/Ex.P.5(d) building plan and submitted to the SRC-NCTE.
445. As per the prosecution case, on the instruction of accused No.3, accused No.2 got the seal i.e. rubber stamp in the name of Mandal Engineering Officer, Singanamal Mandal, made and affixed the same 221 C.C.No.17622/2017 on the building completion certificate and accused No.2 also got the seal i.e. rubber stamp, made in the name of Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayat, Singanamala (Mdl.) and affixed the same on the building plan, thereby making or possessing counterfeit seals with intent to commit forgery.
446. As discussed above, the prosecution has proved that M.O.1 to 6 rubber stamps were seized from the office cum correspondent room of accused No.1 society on 05.07.2016 as per Ex.P.28. M.O.3 and 5 rubber stamps impressions mentioned in Ex.P.28 search list at Sl.No.8 (c) and (e) respectively. Hence, as per prosecution M.O.3 and 5 are the fake rubber stamps which were seized from the accused No.2 on 05.07.2016. As already discussed the evidence of P.W.30, 32, 34 and 35 have deposed about the seizure of M.O.1 to 6 rubber stamps from the office of the accused No.1 society. Though, P.W.32, 34 and 35 are the CBI officers, but P.W.30 is a independent witness who was present during the search and seizure conducted on 05.07.2016. Though, P.W.30, 32, 34 and 35 have been cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2, but nothing has been elicited to discredit their evidence. Hence, considering the oral and documentary evidence as discussed above, this Court is of the opinion that the accused No.2 in pursuance of 222 C.C.No.17622/2017 criminal conspiracy hatched with accused No.3, got the seal i.e. rubber stamp in the name of Mandal Engineering Officer, Singanamal Mandal, made and affixed the same on the building completion certificate and accused No.2 also got the seal i.e. rubber stamp, made in the name of Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayat, Singanamala (Mdl.) and affixed the same on the building plan, thereby making or possessing counterfeit seals with intent to commit forgery.
447. P.W.21 - Sri. V. Satyanaraya, in his evidence deposed that during 2016 - 2018, he working as Principal in CMI Degree College, Ananthapur and he know accused No.3 through his common friends and at that time accused No.3 was dealing the chit funds and he has also subsribed one Chit from him and every Month, he was paying Rs.10,000/- to accused No.3. He further states that accused No.3 offered him partnership of Shri Sharada Educational Society, Akuledu, Ananthapur District and he agreed to the proposal and he has paid Rs.1.8 Lakhs in installments to accused No.3 and there was no any agreeement to that effect in writing and he has paid Rs.80,000/- in one time and another time he has paid Rs.50,000/- in cash and his role in the Shri Sharada Educational Society was to give guidelines to the staff and principal and maintain admission registers and other records etc. 223 C.C.No.17622/2017
448. P.W.21 was subjected to cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused No.3 wherein he admits that he is governed by College Aid Educational Authority and he has not informed to his Authority about participating in the affairs of the other College and he does not know about in whose name and who is running the Shri Sharada Educational institution and he does not know, how accused No.3 is related to Shri Sharada Educational institution. He further states that, he has not received any receipt from the accused No.3 and he is unable to give details about when he has taken the amount.
449. P.W.21 was subjected to cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 wherein he admits that he never visited to Shri Sharada Educational Society situated at Akuledu and he has not shown investment made in chit funds in his I.T. Returns.
450. In view of the above elicitation made in the cross-examination of P.W.21, though he states that he never visited to the accused No.2 society and he has not informed about participating in affairs of other college to his higher authority and he does not know in whose name and who was running the accused No.1 society, but nothing has been elicited to discredit his evidence in respect to approach by the accused No. 3. Hence, to the said extent, the evidence of PW-21 is reliable.
224 C.C.No.17622/2017451. P.W.24 - Sri. P. Ashokkumar Reddy, in his chief examination states that he, accused No.2 and 3 had discussed above opening of new D.Ed. college and they agreed to became partners and they have contributed Rs.2,00,000/- each to the accused No.1 institution. But, in his cross-examination he states that he has no proof to show that he has paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused No.1 society and on the pressure of CBI, he deposed his chief examination. Hence, the evidence of P.W.24 is also not reliable.
452. P.W.27 - Smt. Anjanee Devi, who is the wife of P.W.24 in her evidence states that during the investigation the CBI officers shown Ex.P.84 i.e. members list of accused No.1 society wherein her name reflects as Ex.P.84 (a). Further, she has not supported the case of the prosecution. Considering her evidence, she treated as hostile and subjected to cross- examination by the Ld. PP wherein nothing has been elicited.
453. P.W.29 - Sri. C. Phani Bhushan in his evidence states that he know accused No.2, but does not know about the accused No.1 society and I.O., of CBI has not shown him any CD pertaining to the videography done during the inspection of accused No.1 society and he does not know whether he went to the college during 225 C.C.No.17622/2017 the inspection. Considering his evidence, he treated as hostile and subjected to cross-examination by the Ld. PP wherein nothing has been elicited.
454. P.W.31 - Smt. K. Madavi Latha in her evidence states that she know accused No.2 who was the Head Master of Sree Sarada Vidyanikethan Upper Primary School and at that time she was working as school teacher in Pragathi Vidyanikethan School and after got information about the vacancy in Sree Sarada Vidyanikethan Upper Primary School, she joined the said school as teacher. She further states that she does not know whether accused No.2 was running D.Ed., and B.Ed. College at the premises of school and CBI officers have not confronted the documents pertaining to accused No.1 society. Considering her evidence, she treated as hostile and subjected to cross-examination by the Ld. PP wherein nothing has been elicited.
455. In view of the above discussions, the P.W.24, 27, 29 and 31 have not supported the prosecution case. However, the other prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. As per Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, when any fact is especially is within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. In this case, as discussed 226 C.C.No.17622/2017 above, the accused No.2 has made self attestation with his signature on the important documents marked in Ex.P.1 to 5 and also in Ex.P.5(f), 5(d), 5 (n), 5(o), Ex.P.39 and made signatures on original letter Ex.P.5 (c) and other correspondences made by him. Hence, signing on these documents is especially within the knowledge of accused No.2, hence, the burden of proving under what circumstances he had affixed his signatures on these documents is upon the accused No.2. But, he has failed to explain the same.
456. The Ld. Counsel for accused No. 3 has relied upon the decision reported in (2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 473 in between Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer and Others wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
-
Electronic record produced for the inspection of the court is documentary evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act). Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 56-A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic from generated by a computer. The very admissibility of electronic record which is called as computer output depends on the satisfaction of the 4 conditions prescribed 227 C.C.No.17622/2017 under Section 65 B (2) of the Evidence Act.
Under Section 65 B (4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) There must be a certificate which should identifies the electronic record containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.
The person concerned occupying the responsible official position concerned need only to state in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most importantly, such a certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, Compact Disc (CD), Video Compact Disc (VCD), pen drive, etc., which contains the 228 C.C.No.17622/2017 statement which is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is produced in evidence. All these safeguards are taken to ensure the source and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as evidence. Electronic records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice.
Only if the electronic record is duly produced in terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, would the question arise as to the genuineness thereof and in that situation, resort can be made to Section 45A of the Evidence Act - opinion of examiner of electronic evidence can be sought.
The Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if requirements under Section 65B of the Evidence Act are not complied with, as the law now stands in India.
It is relevant to note that Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 dealing with evidence on computer records in the United Kingdom was repealed by Section 60 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, 1999. Computer evidence hence must follow the common law rule, where a presumption exists that the computer producing the evidential output was recording properly at the material time. The presumption 229 C.C.No.17622/2017 can be rebutted if evidence to the contrary is adduced. In the United States of America, under Federal Rule of Evidence, reliability of records normally go to the weight of evidence and not to admissibility.
Proof of electronic record is a special provision introduced by the Information Technology Act 2000 amending various provisions under the Evidence Act. The very caption of Section 65 A of the Evidence Act read with Sections 59 and 65B thereof is sufficient to hold that the special provisions on evidence relating to electronic record shall be governed by the procedure prescribed under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. That is a complete code in itself. Being a special law, the general law under Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act has to yield. Generalia Specialibus non derogrant: the special law will always prevail over the general Law. Hence, Section 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act have no application in the case of secondary evidence by way of electronic record; the same is wholly governed by Sections 65 A and 65 B. An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in the evidence unless the requirements under Section 65 -B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible.
230 C.C.No.17622/2017The appellant (election petitioner) admittedly has not produced any certificate in terms of Section 65B in respect of the CDs, Exhibits-P4, P8, P9, P10, P12, P13, P15, P20 and P22.
Therefore, the same cannot be admitted in evidence. Thus, the whole case set up regarding the corrupt practice against the first respondent by using songs, announcements and speeches fall to the ground. The situation would have been different had the appellant adduced primary evidence, by making available in evidence, the CDs used for announcement and songs. Had those CDs used for objectionable songs or announcements been duly got seized through the police or Election Commission and had the same been used as primary evidence, the High Court could have played the same in court to see whether the allegations were true. That is not the situation in this case. The speeches, songs and announcements were recorded using other instruments and by feeding them into a computer, CDs were made therefrom which were produced in court, without due certification. Those CDs cannot be admitted in evidence since the mandatory requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act are not satisfied. It is clarified that notwithstanding what is stated herein on the secondary evidence of electronic record with reference to Section 59, 65 A and 65 B of the Evidence Act, if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence, without the 231 C.C.No.17622/2017 requirement of compliance of the conditions in Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
457. In view of above decision, electronic records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice and the very admissibility of electronic record which is called as computer output depends on the satisfaction of the 4 conditions prescribed under Section 65 B (2) of the Evidence Act and the Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if requirements under Section 65B of the Evidence Act are not complied with, as the law now stands in India. It is further held that Section 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act have no application in the case of secondary evidence by way of electronic record; the same is wholly governed by Sections 65 A and 65 B. An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in the evidence unless the requirements under Section 65 B are satisfied.
458. Instant case as discussed above, the prosecution has produced Ex.P-20(a) and Ex.P-20(b) CDs in respect to videography done during the Ex.P-29 spot Observation Mahazar and Ex.P-43 photographs also 232 C.C.No.17622/2017 produced without certificate u/Sec.65 B of Evidence Act and the said CDs marked subject to objection. Hence, in view of above decision, an electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in the evidence unless the requirements under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act are satisfied. Hence, the Ex.P-20(a) & (b) videographs which were made while conducting the spot observation mahazar and Ex.P-43 photographs taken by the PW-12 during survey are produced and marked without production of certificate u/Sec.65 B of Evidence Act. Hence, the said electronic record i.e. Ex.P-20(a) and
(b) and Ex.P-43 shall not be admitted in the evidence by way of secondary evidence. Hence, the above decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
459. The Ld. Counsel for the accused No.3 has relied upon the decision reported in AIR 2015 SC 3549 in between Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. The Dist. Inspector of Police and another wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that ;
25. In reiteration of the golden principle which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases, this Court in Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam (2013) SC SCC 406 had held that suspicion, however grave cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of "may be" true but has to upgrade it in the domain of 233 C.C.No.17622/2017 "must be" true in order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture. It was held, that the Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if in the facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
460. In view of the above decision, the Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if in the facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. In this case, as discussed above, the prosecution has clearly established chain of circumstances, hence there is no two views are plausible in this case. Hence, the facts of the above decision and facts of the case on hand are different. Therefore, the above decision is not applicable to the case on hand.
461. The Ld. Counsel for the accused No.3 has relied upon the decision reported in AIR 2013 SC 3817 in between Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that; in a case of circumstantial evidence, the stated burden of proof on the prosecution is much greater. In this case, as discussed above, the prosecution has clearly established chain of circumstances without any suspicion. Hence, the facts of the above decision and facts of the case on 234 C.C.No.17622/2017 hand are different. Therefore, the above decision is not applicable to the case on hand.
462. The Ld. Counsel for the accused No.3 has relied upon the decision reported in (2009) 15 SCC 200in between State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that; Even in a case where the burden is on the accused, it is well known, the prosecution must prove the foundational facts. In this case, as discussed above, the prosecution has clearly established foundational facts regarding the involvment of the accused No.3 in taking recognition for the D.El.Ed., and B.Ed., courses. Hence, the prosecution has proved the foundational facts and there is no possibility to have both views. Hence, the facts of the above decision and facts of the case on hand are different. Therefore, the above decision is not applicable to the case on hand.
463. The Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 has relied upon the decision reported in (2018) 7 SCC 581 in between Sheila Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj and Another wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that ;
27. A. reasonable doubt has already been thoroughly explained in Latesh Vs. State of Maharashtra wherein "reasonable doubt has been enunciated by this Court as (at SCC p. 83, para 46) a mean between excessive caution and excessive indifference to a doubt, further 235 C.C.No.17622/2017 it has been elaborated that reasonable c doubt must be a practical one and not an abstract theoretical hypothesis"
28. In this case at hand, the imposter has not been found or investigated into by the officer concerned. Nothing has been spilled on the relationship between the imposter and Respondent 1. Law is well settled with regard to the fact that however strong the suspicion may be, it cannot take the place of proof. Strong suspicion, coincidence, grave doubt cannot take the place of proof. Always a duty is cast upon the courts to ensure that suspicion does not take place of the legal proof. In this case, the trial court as well as the appellate court got carried away by the fact that accused is the beneficiary or the executant of the mortgage deed, where the prosecution miserably failed to prove the first transaction ie. PoA as a fraudulent and forged transaction. The standard of proof in a criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt because the right to personal liberty of a citizen can never be taken away by the standard of preponderance of probability.
464. In view of the above decision, always a duty is cast upon the courts to ensure that suspicion does not take place of the legal proof. In this case, as discussed above, the prosecution has clearly proved the chain of circumstances beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the facts of the above decision and facts of the case on hand 236 C.C.No.17622/2017 are different. Therefore, the above decision is not applicable to the case on hand.
465. The Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 has relied upon the decision reported in (1999) 7 SCC 280 in between State of H.P. Vs. Jai Lal and others wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that ;
18. An expert is not a witness of fact.
His evidence is really of an Advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the Judge to form his independent judgment by the application of this criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for consideration along with the other evidence of the case.
The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and material furnished which form the basis of his conclusions.
19. The report submitted by an expert does not go in evidence automatically.
He is to be examined as a witness in court and has to face cross-
examination. This Court in the case of Hazi Mohammad Ekramul Haq v. State of W.B. concurred with the finding of the High Court in not placing any reliance upon the evidence of an expert 237 C.C.No.17622/2017 witness on the ground that his evidence was merely an opinion unsupported by any reasons.
466. In veiw of the above decision, the credibility of expert witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and material furnished which form the basis of his conclusions. In this case, P.W.36 is an expert witness and he deposed that he independently examined the documents sent to the CFSL by utilizing various scientific aids that included lenses of various magnifications and he applied the basic principal of comparison i.e. like with like comparision during the examiantion of signature and he gave the opinion and reasons for his opinion in Ex.P.114 report. On perusal of the reasons assigned for the opinion forms a basis for his conclusions. Though P.W.36 was cross examined at length, but nothing has been elicited to discredit his version. Hence, the facts of the above decision and facts of the case on hand are different. Therefore, the above decision is not applicable to the case on hand.
467. The Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 has relied upon the decision SLP (Crl.) No.9744 of 2024 in between Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that ;
238 C.C.No.17622/201717. Ms. Prerna Singh has also argued that though the charge sheet has been filed under Section 420, the contours of the offence of forgery are evident as the appellant has knowingly used a fake document.
18. We are unable to accept her submission on this score too there is nothing on record to show the appellant had manufactured the alleged fake document which is a sine qua non to attract Section 465 IPC. In fact, the original fabricated document had not been recovered.
19. In Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj & Anr., this Court held to attract Section 464 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused had made the fake document. No material connecting the appellant to the making of the fake document has been adduced in the impugned charge sheet.
20. Similarly, offences under Section 468 IPC and Section 471 IPC are not attracted, as the requisite mens rea, i.e., dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the Education Department and wrongful gain to himself has not been demonstrated as the issuance of the recognition was not dependent on the production of the alleged forged NOC.
468. In the above decision, the original fabricated document had not been recovered, hence it is held that the Section 420, 468 and 471 of IPC do not attracted. In this case, during the investigation I.O. has seized M.O.3 239 C.C.No.17622/2017 and 5 rubber stamps under the searchs and further the fabricated documents i.e. Ex.P.39 original building plan and Ex.P.5 (f), Ex.P.5 (n) and Ex.P.5 (o) which were self attested by the accused No.2 are produced before the Court. Hence, the facts of the above decision and facts of the case on hand are different. Therefore, the above decision is not applicable to the case on hand.
469. The Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 has relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1980 SCC 531 in between Muralilal Vs. State of M.P. wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that ;
11. We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach, as we indicated earlier, should be one of caution Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence mast be considered. In the appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of an handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a 240 C.C.No.17622/2017 question of testimonial weight. We have said so much because this is an argument frequently met with subordinate courts and sentences torn out of context from the judgment of this Court are often flaunted.
470. In view of the above decision, there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. In this case, the evidence of handwriting expert is substantially corroborated by the oral and documentary evidences. Hence, the facts of the above decision and facts of the case on hand are different. Therefore, the above decision is not applicable to the case on hand.
471. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1963 SCC 1728 in between Ishwari Prasad Misra Vs. Mohammad Isa, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that ; Evidence given by experts of handwriting can never be conclusive, because it is, after all, opinion evidence and the evidence given by the attesting witnesses and the scribe and the appellant is wholly satisfactory, that evidence proved the execution of the document by the respondent and the said evidence does not really need to be corroborated by the opinion of experts. In this case, the prosecution has proved the submission of forged documents to the NCTE 241 C.C.No.17622/2017 by the accused No.2 and 3 and the evidence of handwriting expert is substantially corroborated by the oral and documentary evidences. Hence, the facts of the above decision and facts of the case on hand are different. Therefore, the above decision is not applicable to the case on hand.
472. As per the prosecution, the criminal act of the accused No.3 were committed by him outside the purview of his official duty, hence, no sanction for prosecution is required. Though, accused No.3 is a Government servant. But, his criminal acts are outside the purview of his official duty. Hence, no sanction is necessary u/Sec.197 of Cr.P.C.
473. In FIR, the P.W.2 shown as accused No.1. But, as per the charge sheet, she is not prosecuted due to want of evidence.
474. Thus, on going through the entire oral and documentary evidence and materials placed before this Court meticulously, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has established the necessary ingredients of the offence punishable u/Sec.120 B r/w Sec.420, 468, 471 and 473 of IPC and the substantive offences thereof as against the accused No.2 and 3 beyond all reasonable doubt as they have conspired with each other to obtain the formal recognition for D.El.Ed., 242 C.C.No.17622/2017 and B.Ed., courses to the accused No.1 institution with dishonest intention to cheat the NCTE and to obtain the formal recognition, they have forged the documents and used the same before the NCTE as genuine documents and they used the counterfeit seals with an intention to commit forgery. The accused No.1 is a registered society and accused No.2 is the Secretary and authorized person of accused No.1 society and the accused No.2 has cheated the NCTE in obtaining formal recognition for D.El.Ed., and B.Ed. Courses in the name of accused No.1 society. Hence, the accused No.1 society shall be punished for offence of cheating u/Sec.420 of IPC. The evidence on record clinchingly establish the commission of offence punishable u/Sec.120 B r/w Sec.420, 468, 471 and 473 of IPC and the substantive offences thereof in the matter of obtaining formal recognition for D.El.Ed., and B.Ed. Courses against the accused No.2 and 3. The evidence on record clearly established the dishonest intention on the part of accused No.2 and 3 at the vary inception from the stage of filing the online applications for the D.El.Ed., and B.Ed. Courses. In this regard, the evidence on record established clear circumstances against the accused persons forming complete chain of circumstances which is consistent to prove the guilt of the accused persons. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that, the prosecution has proved Point No.1 to 5 beyond all reasonable doubt as 243 C.C.No.17622/2017 against the accused No.2 and 3 and point No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt as against accused No.1 society. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 to 5 in the affirmative.
475. Point No.6: For the reasons discussed in connection with point No.1 to 5 and findings given thereon, this Court proceed to pass the following -
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C.
1973, accused No.1 being Soceity is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
Acting under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. 1973, accused No.2 and 3 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120 B r/w Sec.420, 468, 471 and 473 of IPC and the substantive offences thereof.
The Bail bonds of the accused persons and their surety stand canceled.
To hear regarding Sentence.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on the computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 18th day of May, 2026) [L.J. BHAVANI] XVII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE.
244 C.C.No.17622/2017ORDERS REGARDING SENTENCE In this case, the accused No.2 and 3 are convicted for the offence punishable u/Sec.120 B r/w Sec.420, 468, 471 and 473 of IPC and the substantive offences thereof. The accused No.1 is a registered society and accused No.2 is the Secretary and authorized person of accused No.1 society and the accused No.2 has cheated the NCTE to obtain the formal recognition for D.El.Ed., and B.Ed., courses in the name of accused No.1 society. Hence, the accused No.1 is convicted for the offence punishable u/Sec.420 of IPC. Further, the accused No.1 society is a juristic person and only fine has to be imposed on it.
2. Heard the accused No.2 and 3, their Ld. Counsels and the Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor regarding sentence.
3. The Ld. Counsel for accused No.2 has humbly submitted that, the accused No.2 has faced length trial and he never violated the bail conditions and he is working as teacher and there is no victim in this case. Further, it is submitted that the entire family depending on the income of the accused No.2 and minimum punishment may be imposed. Accordingly, prayed for lenient view in favour of the accused No.2 in the matter of awarding sentence.
245 C.C.No.17622/20174. The Ld. Counsel for accused No.3 has humbly submitted that, the accused No.3 has faced length trial and he never violated the bail conditions and he is working as Head Master and he is aged about 60 years and he is the bread earner and his son is studying who is depending on the income of the accsued No.3. Further, it is submitted that the involvement of accused No.3 is very less and minimum punishment may be imposed. Accordingly, prayed for lenient view in favour of the accused No.3 in the matter of awarding sentence.
5. The accused No.2 and 3 who are before the Court is also submitted in the way as submitted by their Ld. Counsels and prayed for lenient approach in their favour.
6. Per contra, the Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor has submitted that, the offences against the accused persons is proved beyond reasonable doubt and the Court has to consider the nature of the case and gravity of the offence committed by the accused persons and also its effect on the society. Accordingly, prayed for convicting the accused by imposing maximum sentence and fine permissible under law since it is offences against the society.
246 C.C.No.17622/20177. In the matter of imposing the sentence, Court has to hear the accused on sentence, consider the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, gravity of the offence, amount involved, the purpose of punishment being imposed, effect of the offence committed on the society and facts and circumstances of the case under which the offence took place etc. In the present case on hand, the accused No.2 and 3 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy dishonestly obtained the formal recognition to start D.El.Ed., and B.Ed., courses under accused No.1 society and to obtain the said recognition, they forged the documents and used the said documents as genuine documents and also used the counterfeit seals with an intension to commit forgery. The mitigating circumstances expressed by the accused persons are there is no victim in this case and the involvement of the accused No.3 only in respect to furnishing the building plan and they are not convicted of any offence previously. The aggravating circumstances expressed for the seriousness of the offence, its effect on the society.
8. The provisions of Probation of Offenders Act is not applicable to the present case on hand since it is a offence against the society. Hence, this Court is declined to release the accused under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
247 C.C.No.17622/20179. Section 120 B of IPC provides for punishment for criminal conspiracy and the said offence under Section 120 B (1) of IPC is punishable in the same manner as if he abated such offence where no express provision is made in IPC for punishment of criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards and as per Section 120 B (2) of IPC, the party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as per Section 120 B (1) of IPC shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
10. Section 420 of IPC provides for punishment for cheating and the said offence is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and also liable to pay fine.
11. Section 468 of IPC provides for punishment for forgery for the purpose of cheating and the said offence is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and also liable to pay fine.
12. Section 471 of IPC provides for punishment for using the forged document as genuine and the said 248 C.C.No.17622/2017 offence is punishable in the same manner as if he had forged such document. Sec.465 of IPC provides for punishment for forgery and the said offence is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or fine or with both.
13. Section 473 of IPC provides for punishment for making or possessing counterfeit seals with an intention to commit forgery and the said offence is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and also liable to pay fine.
14. The Court has to consider the mitigating factors which are in favour of the accused No.2 and 3 and aggravating circumstances. There is no material placed to show that the accused No.2 and 3 are having any criminal antecedents. As submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.2 and 3, it is noticed that, the accused No.2 and 3 are the bread earners and their family entirely depending upon their income. They have appeared before the Court to face the trial of this case since 2016 for long years and the offence leveled against accused persons are not punishable with capital punishment. However, the submission made by the Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor is also to be taken into consideration. Hence, having considered the facts and 249 C.C.No.17622/2017 circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offences, its effect on the society, the purpose of the punishment, aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the case, this Court proceed to pass the following ;
ORDER The accused No.1 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/-.
The accused No.2 and 3 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120 B r/w Sec.420, 468, 471 and 473 of IPC and they are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and shall also pay fine of Rs.5,000/-
each and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
The accused No.2 and 3 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and they are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and shall also pay fine of Rs.5,000/-
each and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
The accused No.2 and 3 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC and they are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year 250 C.C.No.17622/2017 and shall also pay fine of Rs.5,000/-
each and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
The accused No.2 and 3 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC and they are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
The accused No.2 and 3 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 473 of IPC and they are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and shall also pay fine of Rs.5,000/-
each and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
The sentences ordered shall run concurrently.
Office to supply of the free copy of the judgment to the accused No.2 and 3 forthwith.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on the computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 18th day of May, 2026) [L.J. BHAVANI] XVII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE.
251 C.C.No.17622/2017-: ANNEXURE :-
I. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW 1 : Smt. Uma Prasanna Kumar
PW 2 : Smt. P. Revathy Reddy
PW 3 : Sri. K. Anandan
PW 4 : Sri. K. Sreedhar Rao
PW 5 : Sri. Upendra Rao
PW 6 : Sri. Sanjay Gupta
PW 7 : Sri. V. Ashok Kumar
PW 8 : Sri. Lakshminarasimhaiah
PW 9 : Sri. B. Thirupalu
PW 10: Sri. Suryanarayana .E
PW 11: Sri. P. Gangadhar
PW 12: Sri. P. Venugopala Gupta
PW 13: Sri. D. Hussain Sahib
PW 14: Sri. D. Thirumala Reddy
PW 15: Sri. M. Jameed Ahmed
PW 16: Sri. T.G. Reddy
PW 17: Sri. B. Phaniswara Raju
PW 18 : Sri. K. Anjayya
PW 19: Sri. P. Chandrayudu
PW 20: Sri. V. Premanandam
PW 21: Sri. V. Sathyanarayana
PW 22: Sri. K. Munaiah
PW 23: Sri. Dr. K. Pandurangaswamy
PW 24: Sri. P. Ashok Kumar Reddy
PW 25: Smt. K. Lakshmidevi
252 C.C.No.17622/2017
PW 26: Sri. M. Janardhana Charyulu
PW 27: Smt. C. Anjanee Devi
PW 28: Sri. G. Ramana Reddy
PW 29: Sri. C. Phani Bhushan
PW 30: Sri. M. Mallikarjun
PW 31: Smt. K. Madavi Latha
PW 32: Sri. K. V. Jaganathareddy
PW 33: Sri. S. Ramesh
PW 34: Sri. V. N. Raju
PW 35: Sri. S. Subramanya
PW 36: Sri. P. Venugopala Rao
II. List of witnesses examined for the defence :-
-NIL-
III. Documents exhibited on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P-1 : Sprial-Bound Book titled as
"SRCAPP-3400-2" of Sree Sarada
D.EI.Ed College, A.P.
Ex.P-2 : Sprial-Bound Book titled as
"SRCAPP-3400-1" of Sree Sarada
D.EI.Ed College, A.P.
Ex.P-3 : File titled as National Council for
Teacher Education of 2016-2017-
DOR-18.06.2015 of Sree Sarada
D.EI.Ed College, A.P
Ex.P-4 : Sprial-Bound Book titled as
"SRCAPP-3401-1"of Sree Sarada
B.Ed College, A.P.
253 C.C.No.17622/2017
Ex.P-5 : File titled as National Council for
Teacher Education of 2016-2017-
DOR-18.06.2015 of Sree Sarada
B.Ed College, A.P
Ex.P-6 : Sprial-Bound Book titled as "The
Gazette of India" containing copies
of Notification.
Ex.P-7 : Register titled as "NCTE-SRO-SRC
Meeting Attendance Register.
Ex.P-8 : Booklet of Decision of 313 Emergent
Meeting of SRC-NCTE
Ex.P-9 : File of Decision of 296th Meeting of
SRC-NCTE
Ex.P-10 : File of Decision of 303rd Meeting of SRC-NCTE Ex.P-11 : File of Decision of 304th Meeting of SRC-NCTE Ex.P-12 : File of Decision of 308th Meeting of SRC-NCTE Ex.P-13 : File of Decision of 312th Meeting of SRC-NCTE Ex.P-14 : File of Decision of 313th Meeting of SRC-NCTE Ex.P-15 : File of Decision of 303rd Meeting of SRC-NCTE Dt:15.02.2016 Ex.P-16 : File of Decision of 308th Meeting of SRC-NCTE Dt:28/29/30.02.2016 254 C.C.No.17622/2017 Ex.P-17 : File of Decision of 312th Meeting of SRC-NCTE Dt:28/29.04.2016 Ex.P-18 : File of Decision of 314th Meeting of SRC-NCTE Dt:02/03.05.2016 Ex.P-19 to 26 : 8 number Color Photographs of Sree Sarada D.EI.Ed & B. Ed Colleges Ex.P-27 : Register of Soundness Certificate of Singanamala Mandal Praja Parishad Ex.P-28 : Search List Dt: 05.07.2016 Ex.P-29 : Spot Observation Mahazar Dt:
05.07.2016 Ex.P-30 : Spot Rough Sketch Ex.P-31 : Letter Dt: 02.01.2017 Ex.P-32 : Letter Dt. 02.05.2016 Ex.P-33 : Gazzette Publication Order Dt.02.05.2016 Ex.P-34 : Certificate U/s. 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex.P-35 : Letter dt: 25.10.2016 Ex.P-36 : Letter Dt. 25.10.2016 Ex.P-37 : Photocopy of Search List dt:05.07.2016 255 C.C.No.17622/2017 Ex.P-38 : Photo copy of Spot Observation Mahazar dt: 05.07.2016 Ex.P-39 : Original Building Plan Ex.P-40 : Letter dt:25.10.2016 Ex.P-41 : Report regarding inspection of site dt:19.10.2016 Ex.P-42 : Copy of Field Measurement Sketch Ex.P-43 : 02 Photographs Ex.P-44 : Co-ordinate Sketch of Field Survey No.241 Ex.P-45 : Adangal Extract of Sy. no.241 issued by V.R.O. Ex.P-46 : Report of Village Revenue Officer to Tahasildar Ex.P-47 : Re-settlement Register Ex.P-48 : Letter of Sri. Malola regarding conversion of land Sy. No.241/2.
Ex.P-49 : Receipt Memo Dt: 15.10.2016 Ex.P-50 : Letter dt: 26.06.2015 Ex.P-51 : Letter dt:06.10.2016 Ex.P-52 : Applications for issuance of E.C. Ex.P-53 : Statement of Encumbrance of Property 256 C.C.No.17622/2017 Ex.P-54 : Statement of Encumbrance of property Ex.P-55 : Certified copy of Gift deed of Sharada Education Society executed by Sheshadri Reddy Ex.P-56 : Original Letter 04.10.2016 Ex.P-57 : Attested copy of the letter dt.
21.05.2007 Ex.P-58 : Letter Dt.07.10.2016 Ex.P-59 : No Objection Certificate from SriKrishnadevaraya University, A.P dt: 29.05.2015 Ex.P-60 : Application for No Objection Certificate dt: 25.05.2015 Ex.P-61 : Copies of Certificate of Registration Ex.P-62 : Original Letter dt: 18.04.2016 Ex.P-63 : Letter 27.10.2016 Ex.P-64 : Check List for issue of NOC Ex.P-65 : Copy of Proceedings of the Director, State Council of Education Research and Training Ap., Hyderabad Dt. 25.05.2015 Ex.P-66 : Attested copy of proceedings of Director of SCERT Ex.P-67 : Original of proceedings of Director of SCERT 257 C.C.No.17622/2017 Ex.P-68 : Approved Staff List of D.Ed Course of Sree Sharada Education Society Ex.P-69 : Attested copy of the Affiliation of Pvt. D.Ed Colleges for the year 2016-17- Renewal Scrutiny Report of Applications Ex.P-70 : Letter dt: 12.05.2016 Ex.P-71 : Attested copy of the Inspection Report of Fresh Affiliation for Acadamic Year 2016-17 , dt:12.05.2016 Ex.P-72 : Letter of recommendation Ex.P-73 : Attested copy of order Dt:
26.07.2016 Ex.P-74 : Letter dt: 13.10.2016 Ex.P-75 : Statement Portion of CW-23 U/s 161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P-76 : Statement Portion of CW-24 U/s 161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P-77 : Letter dt: 13.10.2016 Ex.P-78 : Attested copy of Proceedings of the SCERT dt: 25.05.2015 Ex.P-79 : Attested copy of Proceedings of the SCERT dt. 03.03.2016 Ex.P-80 : Proceedings of the SCERT dt: 16.03.2016 258 C.C.No.17622/2017 Ex.P-81 : Statement Portion of CW-27 U/s.
161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P-82 : Letter dt: 15.05.2017 Ex.P-83 : Attested copy of List of Candidates name and final list of pvt. D.Ed Colleges with total intake of seats Ex.P-84 : Copies of File of Certificate of Registration Ex.P-85 : Statement Portion of CW-29 U/s 161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P-86 : Statement Portion of CW-33 U/s 161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P-87 : Bunch of documents such as Format of Affidavit, Inspection Report, Visiting Team Report, etc Ex.P-88 : Bunch of documents such as sale deeds, certificate of registration of Sharada Education Society Ex.P-89 : Search List Dt: 05.07.2016 Ex.P-90 : Statement Portion of CW-32 U/s 161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P-91 : Search List Dt: 05.07.2016 Ex.P-92 : F.I.R. dt: 24.06.2016 Ex.P-93 : Search List Dt: 05.05.2017 Ex.P-94 : File of copies of Correspondence of Sri. Sarada Educational Rural 259 C.C.No.17622/2017 Development and Animal Welfare Society Ex.P-95 : Letter from Mandal Education Officer, Singanamala , Ananthapuramu bearing no.
MEO-MRC-SINGANAMALA/2015 Ex.P-96 : Spiral Bound booklet containing copies of Sree Sarada B.Ed College Ex.P-97 : Spiral Bound booklet containing copies of Sree Sarada D.EI.ED College Ex.P-98 : Spiral Bound booklet containing copies of Sree Sarada D.Ed College, Staff Profile Ex.P-99 : Register titled as " Teachers Attendance Register" of Sree Sarada Vidyaniketan, Akuledu Village Ex.P-100 : Letter dt:04.11.2016 Ex.P-101 : Receipt Memo dt: 05.05.2017 Ex.P-102 : Receipt Memo dt: 09.05.2017 Ex.P-103 : Seizure Memo dt: 06.05.2017 Ex.P-104 : Copies of List of candidates, college wise final allotment list Ex.P-105 : Copies of Final Admission Letters Ex.P-106 : Attendance Register of Students of D.E1.Ed.Course of Sree Sarada D.E1.Ed College 260 C.C.No.17622/2017 Ex.P-107 : Photocopy of SBI Passbook of A/c.
No.30760034394 Ex.P-108 : Public Notice Of NCTE Dt:
27.02.2015 & dt: 30.05.2015 Ex.P-109 : Receipt Memo Dt: 15.10.2016 Ex.P-110 : Receipt Memo Dt: 19.10.2016 Ex.P-111 : Seal Impression of Seized Rubber Stamps Ex.P-112 : Specimen handwriting/signature of Sri. K. Rajasekhar Ex.P-113 : Specimen handwriting/signature of Sri. S. Sheshadri Reddy Ex.P-114 : Letter from CFSL along with Examination Report/Opinion [L.J. BHAVANI] XVII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE.