Delhi High Court
State vs Shri Hari Dutt Sharma And Ors. on 5 November, 2007
Author: P Nandrajog
Bench: P Nandrajog
JUDGMENT
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. Respondents No. 1, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 17 have expired. Thus, the appeal stands abated qua them.
2. The State is in appeal against an order of acquittal acquitting the accused persons for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC.
3. The record has been perused. Learned Counsel have been heard. At the outset I may record that since accused persons have been acquitted, presumption of innocence in their favor has got reinforced. Thus, I have called upon the parties to address arguments limited to show whether the learned Trial Judge has ignored material evidence and secondly whether the conclusion arrived at on the basis of the evidence is perverse.
4. Case of the prosecution was that a society by the name of Bhagwan Parshu Ram Siksha Samiti was running an institution of Physical Education holding out that it would issue a diploma in Physical Education and that the diploma was recognized by the government. Based on the allurement students were enrolled who paid annual fee to the society. Accused persons were the member and the office bearers and members of the managing committee of the institution.
5. The accused persons stated that they were misled to believe that the institution was recognized by the government and for this relied upon letter Ex. PW-7/A dated 30.5.1974 proved by the witness of the prosecution i.e. PW-7. The said letter was addressed by the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare to the President of Bhagwan Parshu Ram Shiksha Samiti wherein it was inter alia conveyed to the President as under:
Pending the question of recognition/Diploma/ Certificate in Physical Education run by your Samiti, on a permanent basis by the Delhi Administration, fulfilllment of essential requirements and conditions which will be intimated in due course, it has been decided to entrust the examination of the students of your college enrolled during the academic year 1973-74, to the authorities of the Laxmi Bai National College of Physical Education, Gwalior. The students, who passed this examination will be considered eligible for appointment to class III posts of Physical Education Teachers under Central Government and Union Territories, for which Diploma/Certificate in Physical Education is a prescribed qualification.
6. Accused persons further relied upon letters Ex. DA and DB, letter Ex. DA was written by Shri Radha Raman, the Chief Executive Councillor to Shri D.P. Yadav, Deputy Minister of Education, Union of India informing that issue pertaining to recognition of diploma and certificate by Bhagwan Parshu Ram Shiksha Samiti was under examination. Letter Ex. DB evidences that the Deputy Educational Advisor, Ministry of Education and Social Welfare, Union of India approved the syllabus of the institution.
7. there from, the accused persons had urged that they had reasons to believe that the Government had accorded temporary approval to them for running diploma courses. Accused pleaded that since in Ex. PW-7/4 the government informed that pending final affiliation the government was entrusting the examination of students to the college they bona-fide believed that they been granted temporary affiliation. This plea has found favor with the learned Trial Judge.
8. I concur with the view taken by the learned Trial Judge not only with reference to the contents of the 4 letters afore-noted, all emanating from government agencies, but even with respect to the testimony of PW-8, Mrs. A. Nanda, who was the member of the State Institute of Education between the years 1967-77. As per her testimony the society had sought recognition for the course in the year 1973. Since recognition could be granted only if institution was found working, she had inspected the institute and had submitted her report Ex.PW-8/A. Based thereon, the Director of Education opined that recognition of a degree course was not within his power. The matter remained pending. Aforesaid fact shows that the accused persons did not have any guilty mind. They were acting with transparency. Though, they were wrong in believing that the institution had been granted a temporary recognition but that would not make their conduct actionable for the offence of cheating.
9. Needless to state, actus reuse and means read are the twin elements to sustain the offence under Section 420 IPC.
10. The view taken by the learned Trial Judge is a possible view on the evidence which has been adduced by the prosecution.
11. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
12. LCR be returned.
