Telangana High Court

Dr.K.Anil Kumar vs State Of Telangana on 19 February, 2025

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

         CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.144 OF 2023

ORDER:

1 This criminal revision case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401

Cr.P.C challenging the Order dated 23.01.2023 passed in

Crl.M.P.No.1683 of 2021 in C.C.No.7874 of 2019 on the file of the

Court of the XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-

Special Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby

the petition filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/A.6

seeking to discharge was dismissed.

2 Heard Sri A.P.Suresh Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State-

2nd respondent and perused the record.

3 The factual matrix that led to the filing of the present revision

is that as per the norms of The All India Council for Technical

Education (AICTE) for establishment of a new technical institution,

the requirement of instructional area has been prescribed as 2,770

sq. Meters (Carpet Area), Administrative Area as 535 sq. Meters

(Carpet Area) Circulation and other area as 995 Sq. Meters and the

total built up area requirement has been prescribed as 4300 Sq.

Meters. After due investigation the AICTE will issue letter of

approval on the basis of approval of the Chairman to the institutions

for the said purpose and then the Engineering Colleges commence

the academic session.

4 Pursuant to the notification issued by the AICTE dated

07.11.2008, inviting applications for establishment of new

institutions for Technical programmes for the Academic Year 2009-

2010 and beyond, Mr. D.N.Sastry (A.1) submitted application vide

letter dated 29.12.2008 to AICTE, Hyderabad to start new

engineering college for the Academic Year 2009-10 and the said

application was forwarded to New Delhi and the New Delhi office

processed the said application / proposal further.

5 On 25.6.2009 the expert committee members of AICTE

inspected M/s. Panineeya Institute of Science and Technology,

Dilsukh Nagar, Hyderabad. The petitioner who is the Honorary

Secretary for the institution was present and signed under

declaration as Applicant on behalf of the institute. As per the

information furnished by the institute, the Expert Committee

members mentioned the instructional carpet area as 2920

sq.Meters, Administrative carpet Area as 535 sq. Meters and

Circulation and other area as 995 Sq. Meters in the report. Upon the

Expert Committee submitting the report, AICTE accorded approval

to D.N.Sastry (A.1) Chairman & Managing Trustee of M/s. Panineeya

Institute of Technology & Science for setting up new engineering

college who in turn started the college and the classes were

commenced from October, 2009.

6 During the course of investigation it was disclosed that

D.N.Sastry (A.1) submitted false valuation certificate dated

22.5.2009 of M/s. Srinivas & Associates to AICTE in which the

valuation of the Educational RCC framed structure consisting of

three floors was mentioned as Rs.233.56 lakhs. However, Sri

A.S.V.S.Srinivas, Proprietor of M/s. Srinivas Associates denied to

have known Sri D.N.Sastry nor giving the said forged valuation

certificate & enclosures to the said institute. Thereby Sri D.N.Sastry

(A.1) by submitting false valuation report cheated AICTE. The

investigation done by CBI also disclosed that there was shortage in

the built up area against the requirement prescribed by the AICTE.

7 The investigation team noticed that two other institutions viz.,

one CBSE School and one B.Ed college were also found operating

from one of the buildings of Panineeya Institute of Technology &

Science contrary to the AICTE norms, which state that at the time of

visit of the Expert Committee Team, no other courses are to be

conducted from the approved / earmarked premises. However, Sri

D.N.Sastry (A.1) concealed that fact i.e. running of CBSE and B.Ed

courses in the same building which was meant for proposed

engineering college in the application submitted to the AICTE during

November, 2008 or during the visit of the Expert Committee on

25.6.2009. Mr. Sastry gave impression that the buildings were

exclusively earmarked for the proposed engineering college. The

petitioner herein also signed in the inspection report to the effect

that the land area for the proposed institution is not shared with

other institutions. However, Mr. Sastry continued to run the CBSE

School and the B.Ed college even after getting the approval from

AICTE. Thus, Mr. Sastry (A.1) and the petitioner, in pursuance of

criminal conspiracy and in order to obtain approval from the AICTE

for starting a new engineering college, falsely suppressed and

concealed the said information of running the two courses in one of

the building or the same building in the said premises and obtained

favourable report from the committee.

8 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner was present in the premises of the college on the request

made by Mr. Sastry (A.1) but he is no way concerned with either

Panineeya Sanskrit College Trust or Panineeya Institute of

Technology and Science (Engg. College) and that the petitioner

never acted as Secretary of the Engineering College either before or

after the inspection of the date of inspection by the Expert

Committee. It is his further contention that the petitioner did not

sign on any document and did not have any role with regard to the

above mentioned Panineeya Sanskrit College Trust or Panineeya

Institute of Technology and Science (Engg. College) and hence no

document is available showing the relation between the petitioner

and the said Panineeya Trust. He further submitted that Condition

7(e) of the Letter of Approval says that "if Technical Institution fails

to disclose the information or suppress and / or misrepresent the

information, appropriate action could be initiated including

withdrawal of AICTE approval". Now The AICTE has withdrawn the

approval and has not renewed the approval from 2011-12 onwards.

Hence the engineering college is closed and presently there is no

engineering college. He further submitted that the Hand Book 2008

relating to approval process did not have any provision for criminal

cases. The 2nd paragraph of Item 12.1 categorically states that the

maximum punishment for any shortfall is withdrawal of approval. In

support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner

relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhu

Limaye vs. The State of Maharashtra1, Sanjay Kumar Rai vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh2, and Order dated 18.9.2012 in

Crl.R.C.No.1307 of 2012 delivered by the erstwhile composite

High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

9 On the other hand, Sri T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, the learned

standing counsel for CBI submitted that the petitioner along with

A.1 Mr. Sastry conspired together and dishonestly and fraudulently

cheated AICTE in getting the approval and thereby they committed

the alleged offences. He further submitted that the petitioner filed

W.P.No.2536 of 2012 before this Hon'ble Court and the said writ

petition was ultimately dismissed on 14.9.2021. He, therefore,

requested to dismiss this revision case.

10 The main crux of the prosecution was that the floor area of

three main buildings and cafeteria shed which are said to be actually

existed at the time of the Expert Committee report (25.6.2009)

worked out to be 3744 sq. Meters against the AICTE requirement of

4300 sq. Meters thereby a deficiency in the floor area is 556 sq.

(1977) 4 SCC 551

AIR 2021 SC 2351

Meters. Thus, the petitioner-A.6 along with Mr.Sastry-A.1, with a

dishonest and fraudulent intention suppressed the facts and got the

approval from AICTE and committed offences punishable under

Sections 420 and 120-B IPC.

11 Section 420 IPC says that whoever cheats and thereby

dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to

any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a

valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which

is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be

punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which

may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

12 In the case on hand, the case of the prosecution was that

there was an inducement to the inspection team of the AICTE and

also deception to do a particular thing by misrepresenting with

regard to the specified area suppressed the fact of running a CBSE

school and B.Ed college in the very same premises and with the said

inducement the inspection team submitted their report which

resulted in granting permission to the said institution for running

Engineering college. In that manner, the petitioner herein - A.6 in

collusion with A.1-Sastry, induced the inspection team to do which

they would not have done and thus deceived the inspection team.

13 In the light of the aforesaid contentions, it is to be seen that

the petitioner is only an employee and is only a witness to the

transactions and he had never acted as Secretary of the Engineering

College either before or after the inspection by the expert

committee. The prosecution has not put forth any document

showing the relation between the petitioner and the Trust. More so,

it is to be seen from the record that condition 7(e) of the Letter of

Approval says that "if Technical Institution fails to disclose the

information or suppress and / or misrepresent the information,

appropriate action could be initiated including withdrawal of AICTE

approval". Now it is also contended by both parties that AICTE has

withdrawn the approval and has not renewed the approval from

2011-12 onwards. It is also to be seen that A.1 who was

instrumental for the entire episode died during the course of

proceedings. Simply because the petitioner was a witness to the

transaction he cannot be roped into. In the absence of prime

accused, the possibility / chances of proving the allegations would

be too remote. There is no material to show that the petitioner had

any intention right from the beginning to cheat the AICTE and

hence provisions of Section 420 IPC do not attract, so also the

offence under Section 120 (B) of IPC. The offences alleged cannot

be attributed to the petitioner in the given facts and circumstances.

It is also pertinent to note that the inspection team who has given

the permission was also found not guilty by the competent

authorities.

14 Insofar as the contention of the learned standing counsel for

the CBI that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed

by this Court is concerned, it may be true that that writ petition was

dismissed basing on the circumstances exist as on that date. But

due to the passage of time much water has flown under the bridge.

Though the contention of the learned standing counsel is taken into

consideration, on facts, it is to be seen that the entire case revolves

around Accused No.1, who died during the course of the

proceedings and as observed supra, the petitioner is only an

employee and is only a witness to the transactions and he had never

acted as Secretary of the Engineering College either before or after

the inspection by the expert committee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Sanjay Kumar Rai case (2 supra) held as follows:

"Albeit, there should be interference, may be, in exceptional cases, failing which there is likelihood of serious prejudice to the rights of a citizen. For example, when the contents of a complaint or the other

purported material on record is a brazen attempt to persecute an innocent person, it becomes imperative upon the Court to prevent the abuse of process of law".

15 In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that

continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is not at all

necessary.

16 In the result, this criminal revision case is allowed, setting

aside the Order dated 23.01.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1683 of

2021 in C.C.No.7874 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the XXI

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Special Sessions

Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad. Consequently the petitioner is

discharged from the offences charged against him in C.C.No.7874 of

2019 on the file of the Court of the XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate-cum-Special Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad.

17 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in these two criminal