The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to VACATE the interim order granted in l.A No, 1 ctt 2023 by vide Order dated 2410212023 in CRLRC No.'144 of 2023 Hon'ble High Court for the state of Telangana. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A. P. Suresh Ram Counsel for the Respondent: T. Srujan Kumar Reddy, SC for CBI The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI ]U CE E.V.VEN GOPAL CRIMINAL REVI ION CASE No.144 OF 2023 ORDER: 1 This criminal revision case is filed under Section 397 rlw 401 Cr.P.C challenging the Order dated 23.0t.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1683 of 2021 in C.C.No.78t4 of 2OI9 on the fite 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 fiting of the present revision is that as per the norms of The All India Council for Technical Education (AICI-E) 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. 2 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 Technlcal 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 stait 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 institut,=. 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 a1d t$ 3 Circulation and other area as 995 Sq. Meters in the report. Upon the Exped 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 repoft cheated AICTE. The investigation done by CBI also disclosed that there was shoftage 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 & 4 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 premise:;' 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 englneering 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 nr:t 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 .- +)etitioner was present in the premises of the college on lhe request 5 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 fufther 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 6 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 Maharashtral, Sanjay Kumar Rai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh2, and Order dated 19.9.2012 in Crl.R.C.No.1307 of 2O12 delivered by the er:;twhile composite High Couft 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 2072 before this Hon'ble Couft and the said writ petition WAS ultimately dismissed on 14.9.2021. He, therefore, requested to dismiss thls revision case. 10 The main crux of the prosecution was that tl-re 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 'z AIR 2021 sc 2351 7 Meters. Thus, the petitioner-A.6 along with Mr'Sastry-A1, with a dishonestandfraudulentintentionsuppressedthefactsandgotthe approval from AICTE and committed offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-8 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 punishedwithimprisonmentofeitherdescriptionforatermwhich 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 therewasaninducementtotheinspectionteamoftheAICTEand also deception to do a pafticular 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 ' 8 collusion with A.l-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 20Ll-12 onwards. It is also to be seen that A.1 who was instrumental for the entire episode died durinq 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 apd t: 9 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 peftinent to note that the inspection team who has given the permission was also found not guilty by the competent authorities. L4 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 dismissedbasingonthecircumstancesexistasonthatdate.But duetothepassageoftimemuchwaterhasflownunderthebridge. Thoughthecontentionofthelearnedstandingcounselistakeninto consideration, on facts, it is to be seen that the entire case revolves around Accused No.1, who died durlng the course of the proceedings and as obserued 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 expeft 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' faifint wiicn there is likelihood of serious prejudice to the rights of a .itir"-n. fot example, when the contents of a complaint or the other t \ 10 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". In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that 15 continuation of proceedings against the petiticrner is not at all necessary. 16 In the result, this criminal revision case is allowed, setting aside the Order dated 23.0t.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1683 of 202t in C.C.No.7874 of 2019 on the file of the Coutt 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. L7 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in these two criminal revision cases shall also stand dismissed. //TRUE coPYil Sd/. K. SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR A, 1.. \luiErronoFFtcER To, l.TheXXlAdditionalChiefMetropolitanMagistrate<;r-rm.SpecialSessions Court, at NamPallY, HYderabad '

2. One CC to Sri A. P Suresh Ram Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri T. Srulan Kumar Reddy' SC for CBI [OP[JC] 4. Two CD CoPies VIl/plp ({ t CF 1t'rE S [4I6 J (n 15 nrn 26 ? FSpnrla€i HIGH COURT DATED: 1910212025 ORDER CRLRC.No.144 of 2023 ALLOWING THE CRL.R.C G."?(.b 9o* r4\ -