Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

....................................................................................."

Hence, the instant Petitions filed with additional documents being Annexures P-6, P-7, P-8 and P-9 and points urged in relation to the documents and the aforestated prayer.

4. The Petitioner‟s case is that the Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University (for brevity „EIILM University‟), was established vide Notification No. 28/LD/2006 dated 3.4.2006, by enacting the "Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University, Sikkim Act, 2006 being Act No. 4 of 2006 (hereinafter „EIILM University Act, 2006‟). The sponsor of the said Crl. M.C. No. 20 of 2014 : Vinay Rai vs. State of Sikkim 4 & Crl. M.C. No. 21 of 2014 : Vinay Rai vs. State of Sikkim University was EIILM, Kolkata, West Bengal, a Unit of Malvika Foundation, New Delhi. A Suo Motu FIR, being FIR No. 51/2012 dated 1.9.2012, under Sections 406/420/467/120‟B‟ IPC was registered by the Station House Officer, Jorethang Police Station, South Sikkim, making various allegations against the Management of the EIILM University, where the name of the Petitioner found mention sans his specific role and position in the University. He was granted anticipatory bail vide Order of this Court dated 15.1.2013. That, he has ceased to be a Trustee of the Rai Foundation or of the Malvika Foundation, having resigned therefrom on 9.11.2001 and 22.3.2004, respectively. The Investigating Officer (for short „I.O.‟) despite being seized of the matter submitted Charge-Sheet against him on 6.5.2013.

16. It was further canvassed that the occupation of the Petitioner as per the FIR is Chairman ASSOCHAM, with no association with Malvika Foundation or the EIILM University, apart from which no allegations have been made individually against the Petitioner in the FIR. Drawing the attention of this Court to Annexure P-12, learned Counsel would argue that that Mrs. Deepa Basnett, Director, Higher Education, Human Resource Development Department, had attended the Board of Governors Meeting held on 30.7.2012, at Uttarakhand, where the Petitioner was referred to as the Founder and Chairperson of EIILM University but at the relevant time he was not associated with the EIILM University and had merely gone to deliver a welcome address. Besides, Annexure P-17, Prospectus of the Distance Education Programme, does not bear his name. Clarifying the naming of the Petitioner in the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Col. (Retd.) Alok Bhandari, as the „Advisor‟ and Crl. M.C. No. 20 of 2014 : Vinay Rai vs. State of Sikkim 11 & Crl. M.C. No. 21 of 2014 : Vinay Rai vs. State of Sikkim „overall In-Charge‟ of the EIILM University, it was contended that no such designations exist but being a Member of the ASSOCHAM, he used to advise the University. As per learned Counsel, in the statement of O.B. Vijayan, it is apparent that the Police have inserted the word „owner‟ subsequently, following the Petitioner‟s name, to his detriment, when in fact he is not the owner.

18. The contra, arguments advanced by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State Respondent was that although the Petitioner claims to have resigned from the University, the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of O.B. Vijayan, Vice Chancellor, recorded on 7.5.2013, would reveal that the Petitioner is the owner/Advisor of EIILM University, while the Statement of Alok Bhandari, Registrar, places the Petitioner as the Advisor and In-Charge of the EIILM University. According to Vinod Kumar Dahiya, Controller of Examination, the Petitioner is the overall In-Charge and Advisor of EIILM University and the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of R.P. Banerjee, Member of EIILM University, indicates that the Petitioner was the Chairman of the University, besides, the Respondent asserts (2009) 1 SCC 516 (1988) 1 SCC 692 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 2013 CRI. L.J. 411 (2014) 10 SCC 473 (2001) 3 SCC 549 (2011) 4 SCC 402 Crl. M.C. No. 20 of 2014 : Vinay Rai vs. State of Sikkim 13 & Crl. M.C. No. 21 of 2014 : Vinay Rai vs. State of Sikkim that rupees six crores has been collected by the Petitioner through various illegal methods. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought to convince this Court that the Rai Foundation consists of the Petitioner and his sister, his sons and other family members, as also the Malvika Trust and the Integrated Institute of Excellence Society and Rai Business School. The Petitioner is the owner of the Malvika Trust, Sponsoring Body of the EIILM University, substantiated by the Statement of witness Tempo Gyamtso, Special Secretary, Technical Education, Human Resource Development Department, Sikkim, who stated that the Petitioner introduced himself as Chairman and Founder of the Sponsoring Body. It was put forth that the modus operandi of the EIILM University was brought to light by one Mohabbat Hussain, a resident of Jalpaiguri District, West Bengal, who having enrolled in EIILM University, went to the University Distance Education Programme at Badarpur, Delhi, but was told by the Security Guard that no such office existed at the said place. The emails between Henok Guangul and the Petitioner indicate that he was still a part of the EIILM University in 2008. He was also using an email ID of Rai Foundation which substantiates the fact that he continued to be a part of the Rai Foundation despite his claim of resignation. To buttress his submissions, reliance was placed on Suresh alias Pappu Bhudharmal Kalani vs. State of Maharashtra 10, Om Wati (Smt) and Another11, Mosiruddin Munshi vs. Mohd. Siraj and Another12.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with male fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

23. On the anvil of the principles enunciated hereinabove while considering the investigation undertaken pursuant to the FIR No. 51/2012, it is, inter alia, revealed that after the EIILM University came into existence by the EIILMU Act, 2006. The UGC vide its letter dated 22.7.2008, allowed the University to award degrees, as specified by the UGC, under Section 22 of the UGC Act, 1956, with the approval of the Statutory Council wherever required. The University was allowed to conduct a total of 46 (forty-six) programmes but had been conducting around 74 courses in the Distance Education Mode without any authority from the concerned bodies as enumerated in the Charge-Sheet. Section 10 of the Crl. M.C. No. 20 of 2014 : Vinay Rai vs. State of Sikkim 17 & Crl. M.C. No. 21 of 2014 : Vinay Rai vs. State of Sikkim EIILMU Act permitted the University to conduct the programmes as listed in the Charge-Sheet subject to approval from the concerned national accreditation bodies, the University, however, obtained approval only from the Distance Education Council which allowed it to conduct three courses being B.A. (Hospitality & Tourism), M.B.A. and B.C.A. for the academic session 2009-10. In May 2012, the DEC vide a written communication addressed to the Vice Chancellor of EIILM University, O.B. Vijayan, barred it from conducting any courses in distance mode which it ignored and continued enrolling students. The DEC in August 2008 decided not to grant permission to any Institution to conduct B.Tech./B.E. Programmes in the light of the directives of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, this decision would continue till clearance by the All India Council of Technical Education (for short „AICTE‟). In violation thereof, the EIILM University continued to offer such courses by Distance Education Mode and award degrees for wrongful gains. It also transpired that the EIILM University has 17 national coordinators, each having over 300 admission centres and more than 4000 admission centres functioning all across the country, from where students were being admitted, degrees and diplomas signed and issued by the University authorities even for unauthorised courses. The students who were enrolled thereof were paying large amounts as fees in the belief that their degrees and diplomas were genuine. That, an additional category Collaborative Industry Based Education (CIBE) was being offered by the EIILM University in collaboration with National Centre for Internship Studies (NICS), Crl. M.C. No. 20 of 2014 : Vinay Rai vs. State of Sikkim 18 & Crl. M.C. No. 21 of 2014 : Vinay Rai vs. State of Sikkim thereby luring students into programmes without approval of any accreditation bodies. The investigation further revealed that the study material for the courses, the conduct of examination, checking of question papers, issue of mark Sheets, degrees was all done by the University but the University had failed to comply with any of the directions/requirements of the AICTE, UGC and other national accreditation bodies which are essential pre-requisites for providing quality education to students. It was also found that the faculty members for the teaching courses were short of the requirement. Investigation also brought to light that Malvika Trust was set up by late Kulwant Rai, father of Vinay Rai and the Trust is the Sponsoring Body of EIILM University, Kolkata and consequently became the Sponsoring Body of the EIILM University, Sikkim. Along with Malvika Foundation, Rai Foundation and Integrated Institute of Excellence Society was set up by late Kulwant Rai along with his son, Vinay Rai. Funds collected from students of EIILM University have been transferred to the account of the Rai Foundation and huge sums of money were removed from the account of EIILM University into the accounts of Integrated Institute of Excellence Society, Rai Tech and Rai Business School. Money was also directly put into the account of the Petitioner from Rai Foundation (Annexure C-7). There is a common thread between all the Trusts i.e. Malvika Trust, Rai Foundation and Rai Business School, which were all started by late Kulwant Rai with his family members as Trustees, while the Petitioner is the founding Member/Trustee of Rai Foundation and the Founder and Chairman of Malvika Trust, apart from which the Crl. M.C. No. 20 of 2014 : Vinay Rai vs. State of Sikkim 19 & Crl. M.C. No. 21 of 2014 : Vinay Rai vs. State of Sikkim Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statement of witnesses‟ fortify the Prosecution case. Thus, it was found that on the basis of the circumstantial facts and material evidence, prima facie case under Sections 406/420/467/120B/34 of the IPC existed against the Petitioner.