- (1.) APPLICANTS have been summoned by the Special Judicial Magistrate, (CBI) Ghaziabad in Case No. 456/2012 (in FIR No. RC-219/2011 (E) 0016) (C.B.I.versus Vipin Sahni and others) under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC, registered at P.S. CBI/ EO-1, New Delhi. The applicants have come up before this Court seeking quashment of the aforementioned case through this petition. In order to resolve the controversy involved in the present case, certain facts are required to be noted :- An FIR No. RC-219/2011 (E) 0016 lodged under Section 120B read with section 420 IPC, and section 13(2) read with section 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act at P.S. CBI/EO-1, New Delhi was registered against the applicants and some unknown officials of All India Council for Technical Education (in short as 'the AICTE'). The allegations contained in the FIR are that one Sunshine Educational and Development Society, C-42, Sector-2, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, was granted approval for three management institutions at a single plot of 4.8 acres at 28/1, Knowledge Park-III, Greater Noida. It was alleged that the said society dishonestly and fraudulently got approval for Business School of Delhi (Post Graduate Diploma in Management Course) from AICTE on 17.8.2007. Subsequently, the approval for Business School for Women (PGDM Course) and International Business School of Delhi were obtained from AICTE on 29.5.2008 and 19.6.2008 respectively on the same plot. It is further stated in the FIR that during the enquiry, it was revealed that plot no. 28-1, Knowledge Park-III, Greater Noida was already mortgaged by the Society on 29.1.2007 with Corporation Bank, Sector-18, Noida. This information was concealed by the applicants from the AICTE, as a result of which, by concealment of the fact, the approval was obtained by the applicants. The said information was required to be given in terms of Rule 4.2(iii) of AICTE Approval Process Rules, 2006. The approval could be granted only in case the land was free from all encumbrances. On the basis of the FIR, the investigation was initiated by the C.B.I. and consequently Charge sheet no. 11/2012 was filed on 19.10.2012 against the applicants under section 120B read with Section 420 IPC. The allegations contained in the FIR are that the land (plot no. 28/1, Knowledge Park-III, Greater Noida, U.P. was already mortgaged by the Society on 29.1.2007 with the Corporation Bank, Sector-18, Noida. The approval was obtained and given under Rule 4.2(iii) of AICTE Approval Process Rules, 2006, which says that the land where any technical institution is established should be free from any kind of mortgage and free from all kinds of encumbrances. The charges sheet further reveals that applicant Vipin Sahni, Chairman, Pradeep Goel Chartered Accountant and Dr. J. Sanwalkar, Director represented M/s Sunshine Educational and Development Society held meeting with Hearing Committee regarding establishment of Business School of Delhi on 20.6.2007 at AICTE Headquarters, New Delhi. It is revealed that in the Hearing Committee Report dated 20.6.2007, the approval bureau in Col. Bureau Observation (M&T/E&T) has mentioned in Col. No. (xiv) of Land Details (whether the land is free from mortgage) as 'No' (as mentioined in application form Point 6-v) whereas, the members of the Hearing Committee have mentioned 'Yes' in the column of Hearing Committee observations. The relevant paragraph 5.2 of the Charge is being extracted below : " 5.2. Investigation further revealed that Vipin Sahni, Chairman Shir Pradeep Goel, Chartered Accountant and Dr. J.Sanwalkar, Director represented M/s Sunshine Educational and Development Society in the meeting of the Hearing Committee regarding establishment of Business School of Delhi held on 20.6.2007 at AICTE Headquarters, New Delhi. It is revealed that in the Hearing Committee Report dated 20.6.2007 the approval bureau in Col. (xiv) of Land Details (whether the land in free form mortgage) as 'No' (As mentioned in application form Point 6-v) whereas, the members of the Hearing Committee have mentioned 'Yes' in the column of Hearing Committee Observations. The proposal of the Society for establishment of Business School of Delhi was approved by the members of the Hearing Committee of AICTE constituted for the same with a condition..."
(2.) THE proposal of the society for establishment of Business School of Delhi was approved by the members of the Hearing Committee of AICTE constituted for the same with a condition 'subject to the condition of furnishing revised course structure, admission process' at para "A" of the recommendation and forwarded the same to the competent authority. The competent authority approved the conditions suggested by Hearing committee. Another committee was formed in which it was ensured that revised course structure was submitted by the applicant Society. After the fulfillment of the conditions, the competent authority recommended to issue Letter of Intent in favour of the applicant Society. The Member Secretary of AICTE Headquarters, New Delhi recommended three names as the members of the Expert Visit Committee for conducting Expert visit at Business School of Delhi. The Expert Visit Committee conducted physical inspection at Plot No. 28/1, Knowledge Park-III, Greater Noida, U.P. and physically verified the required parameters as per the guidelines of the approval process of AICTE. After completion of the visit/inspection, the Expert Committee recommended for 60 intake for the period 2007-08 (PGDM Course) for Business School of Delhi. A letter of approval dated 17.8.2007 with terms and conditions was issued by the then Advisor (M&T) AICTE. In respect of another technical institution in the name of Business School for Women (PGDM Course) at Plot no. 28/1, Knowledge Part-III, Greater Noida for the academic year 2008-09, similar allegations were levelled. It was mentioned in the application form that the land on which the society proposed to establish their technical institute in the name of Business School for Women was neither mortgaged nor any loan/mortgage was raised against the title of the land where this institute was to be established. This institution was also through in the same process and thereafter approval was granted in favour of the applicants.
(3.) IN respect of the International Business School of Delhi (PGDM course), similar allegations have been levelled that the land on which the institution was built up was neither mortgaged nor any encumbrances were created. The approval was granted in respect of the said institution. The charge sheet also reveals that the land of the institution was mortgaged on 29.1.2007 at Rs. 575 Lacs which was sanctioned in favour of the applicants for raising construction of the institutions. It also appears from the charge sheet that the applicants in their letter dated 10.1.2007 requested the bank to relinquish one acre of land, out of 4.89 acres at Plot No. 28/1, Knowledge Part-III, Greater Noida, as it was earmarked for establishment of a technical institute in the name of Business School of Delhi. This application was filed keeping in view the fact that for the purpose of obtaining approval it has to be shown that the land in question is free from any kind of mortgage and free from all kind of encumbrances. The crux of the allegations against the applicants are that while submitting their form, they have mentioned that the land in question was not mortgaged and was free from all kinds of encumbrances, as a result of which, they have obtained approval from the AICTE by concealing this information. This information was required to be given in terms of Clause 4.2(iii) of the Approval Process Rules of the AICTE. It is specifically provided that the land should be free from mortgage/encumbrances. The applicants have committed an offence punishable under section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC. The contention of the applicants is that they had applied for establishment of a technical institute in the name and style of Delhi Business School in an area of one acre out of 4.89 Acres of land. The application was made on behalf of the society on 22.1.2007 in which all the necessary facts including the fact that the property is mortgaged has been mentioned. A photocopy of the said application dated 22.1.2007 has been filed as Annexure-6 to the petition. It is admitted in the summary submitted along with the application that the property is not mortgaged with the bank. However, in the detailed application in column no. 6, it is admitted that the property has been mortgaged. Both the application and form are part of the petition (pages 96 & 98). In face of this, the applicants have not concealed any information from AICTE. It is stated that due to inadvertence in the summary, the property is not shown mortgaged while in the form filled up, it is clearly stated that the property has been mortgaged. Mere reading of these documents, it clearly establishes that no offence has been committed by the applicants. The contention of the respondent is that the applicants have willfully concealed this information from the AICTE and got an approval to run the institute. It is further stated that the applicants with criminal intention induced the AICTE to accord approval in their favour by concealing this information.;