There were no Lab Assistants available in the CollegeWith respect to the The College building is The College is being run from building and other rented and on non- rented premises.It is situated in physical conforming area.He further raised another legal issue that no sanction was obtained from the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCT of Delhi), which had appointed the petitioners.Section 197 Cr.P.C. specifically requires that before taking cognizance of any offence, the Court ought to have required the complainant to obtain previous sanction from the GNCT of Delhi.1. Vide the present petitions, the petitioners seek quashing and setting aside the Criminal Complaint No. 21/1/11 titled as "Aditya College of Pharmacy & Science Vs.S.S. Mantha & Ors.", which was filed by the Crl.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 2 of 31 complainant/respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Section 420/468/471 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC).2. Also seek setting aside of the order dated 15.01.2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, pursuant to which summons have been issued to the petitioners.Since all the petitioners have challenged the same complaint and the impugned order, therefore, this Court has decided to dispose of all the petitions by a common judgment.The allegations against the petitioners are that they entered into a criminal conspiracy with each other with a view to cheat the complainant and cause harm to the reputation of the College.In furtherance of this intention, the petitioners forged the inspection report and the words NOT RECOMMENDED were added later on.The complainant led the pre- summoning evidence of two witnesses.One of the witnesses, i.e., Mr. Devender Gupta (CW1) is the Founder-cum-Chairperson of the College and other is Mr.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 3 of 31He submitted, past history of the case is that on 21.05.2009, the premises of the Complainant Institute was inspected as a Ist inspection by the above Committee and since the said Committee found deficiencies, therefore, affiliation was denied.The Complainant Institute challenged the Ist inspection report vide W.P.(C) No. 9706/2009, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.The complainant challenged the same by way of LPA No. 384/2009, wherein the Division Bench of this Court directed that a joint inspection to be conducted by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIP University) as the 2nd inspection.Accordingly, on 20.08.2009, the joint inspection was conducted and same deficiencies, as were in the Ist inspection, were found again.On 25.08.2009, the Complainant Institute had filed objections to the report.As the aforesaid LPA No. 384/2009 was disposed of without granting any relief, thus, the objections of the Complainant Institute were deemed to have been rejected.This was the third inspection.On 27.03.2010, above named retired Judge found that the Complainant Institute was not fit to be run as an educational institute to conduct the B.Pharma Course.Accordingly, this Court while accepting the findings, passed an order dated 05.05.2010 in W.P.(C) No.12724/2009 that students Crl.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 4 of 31 admitted to the roll of the College should be transferred to some other Institute affiliated with the University.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 4 of 31Meanwhile, on 03.01.2009, complainant filed impugned complaint before the learned Magistrate against ten individuals including the petitioners.Vide order dated 14.12.2009, not being satisfied with the pre- summoning evidence led by the complainant, the learned Trial Court directed the local police to investigate the allegations made in the complaint.Accordingly, after investigation, on 13.01.2010 the police filed their report in which they found that no case was made out.Learned senior counsel further submitted that an enquiry was conducted by an officer of the level of Assistant Commissioner of Police.The said ACP, inter alia, recorded the statement of said Dr. Surinder Singh, who was supposed to have admitted to Mr. Devender Gupta over the telephone that the words NOT RECOMMENDED were added later on.He has further stated that "as far as recording of my voice on telephone, we usually ignore such calls and try to get rid of this as soon as possible.So whatever the conversation has been cited by Mr. Devender Gupta is meaningless and without any substance and allegation".Thereafter, the local police filed a report on 13.01.2010 with the opinion that no offence was made out.The learned Trial Court allowed the complainant to file the objections against the said report, which objections were in the nature of a protest petition.Accordingly, after perusing the inspection report and the objections, though the LPA was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 01.09.2009, however, no relief was granted to the complainant.Thus, the inspection report has received the imprimatur of this Court.Learned counsel submitted that the allegations of forgery etc. against the inspecting team or any of the officers of the AICTE or the GGSIP University ought to have been raised before the Division Bench of this Court and not by way of a private compliant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.).Learned counsel further submitted that the Complainant Institute was inspected on three different occasions in quick succession.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 8 of 31For the convenience, comparison of the two reports is given below:-No. Ground Considered Findings in the Joint Findings by Justice Mahajan ReportThe latest a congested residential area a 20 infrastructure Lease Agreement made on ft. road.The undersigned was 24th May, 2007, is for a not permitted to carry out period of five year.The Court the Court order, and was Commissioner was unable to not allowed to undertake verify the exact built up area.architect / civil bodies, or for The rooms are not ventilated.the purpose of fire safety and The premises have a narrow Crl.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 9 of 31 escape / exit routes in the maze of lanes and stair cases event of emergencies.See leading to the first and second Annexure-II.The College Circulation is significantly failed to produce the site plan inadequate.The mobility & and furnish dimensions of the movement of students in the various rooms and of the whole College building IS highly property.A single line sketch restricted and unfavourable.for the College premises was The staircases are improper filed.The same is annexed to the report.I have perused the AICTE norms with regard to the land area and built up area norms and it is clear that the College does not conform to the standards and norms.A visual inspection of the premises leaves no room for doubt that the present location, and the layout of the building, surroundings and the lack of facilities is not suitable for imparting education.There is no provision for fire safety and emergency exit routes.There is no space available for sports and cultural activities in the present set up.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 9 of 31With respect to the One principal and six It was stated that the Principal Principal and other lecturers were available on was qualified as she has 15 staff the date of inspection.They years of industrial experience.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 10 of 31The ceiling of building are and ascertain whether the same non-RCC make.The being used as residential representatives of the AICTE & area.University were not allowed toThere are some sign assist the Commissioner.It is boards outside the College not possible to assess whether building indicating ((Jamia the practicals could be done or Milia Islamia Study Centre. were being done as the studentsThe present building is have not been attending the not suitable and fit for College for some time.The running a Pharmacy College.Labs do not indicate that they The Committee was not set have been used for quite some allowed to measure the area.The library is adequately stocked.Adequate numbers of computers were found in the computer room.No record was shown as to when the equipment, computers, machinery, chemicals, reagents etc. were purchased other than what is placed on record.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 11 of 31Tripathi has argued that since findings of all the three inspecting committees were almost identical, the present case is clearly a case of no evidence, therefore, the complaint and the summoning order dated 15.01.2011 deserves to be quashed.He has raised the legal issue that Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the admissibility of the electronic record.The said provision squarely applies to the present case since the only evidence led by the complainant in his deposition is a so called tape recorded conversation between the Founder-cum-Chairman of the Complainant Institute and one member of the inspecting team.The petitioners can only be removed from their office only after obtaining the sanction of the GNCT of Delhi.The GGSIP University has been created by an Act of the State Legislature of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the petitioner, Dilip K. Bandopadhyay is employed in connection with the affairs of the said State.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 13 of 31 nor the orders dated 11.03.2010, 26.04, 2010 and 16.08.2010 passed by this Court dismissing the three contempt petitions were filed by the complainant before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.Such a deliberate suppression of material documents which were available with the complainant tantamounts to committing a fraud on the Trial Court.On the other hand, Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/respondent No.2 submitted that the complainant made out a case for summoning of the petitioners as on 03.08.1999, the College was granted approval by AICTE for starting a B. Pharmacy Degree Course for the session 1999-2000 with 60 admissions.Thereafter, for the sessions 2000-01, 2001-02, 2005-06 and 2006-07, the College was granted extension of approval by AICTE with 30 admissions for each session.Pursuant to order dated 21.02.2007 passed in W.P.(C) No. 13751/2006, this Court directed the University not to insist upon the factors which are covered by AICTE Act or Regulations.Accordingly, the college was granted extension of approval by AICTE for session 2007-08; and University granted provisional affiliation to the College and made 27 admissions to the College.Thereafter, on 19.05.2008, College was granted further extension of approval by AICTE for two years, i.e., session 2008-09 and 2009-10 with 30 admissions.University made admissions of 30 students for the sessions 2008-09 through centralized counseling.Thereafter, in June, 2009, College was inspected by the University and it awarded 335 marks out of 900 towards building and 645 marks out of 1000 towards faculty and infrastructure.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 16 of 31He submitted that the non-grant of admission was subject matter of challenge in W.P. (C) No. 9706/2009, wherein joint inspection was ordered on 20.08.2009, in which the words NOT RECOMMENDEDwere mentioned.Thereafter, Justice C.K. Mahajan ( Retd.) was appointed to carry out the inspection, who submitted his report, which was accepted by this Court and the students were transferred to other College.The complainant filed its complaint on 05.11.2009 with the grievance that the report dated 20.08.2009 was tampered with, in which summons have been issued against the petitioners and other accused persons.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 17 of 31Moreover, the conversation between the Chairman of the College and Prof. P.K. Sahu also shows that the report was written by three persons.The conversation further also shows that the University officials were annoyed with the College.The last paragraph of the conversation with Prof. P.K. Sahu notes that Prof. Sahu says that the Vice-Chancellor was annoyed with the Chairman of the College and being experts they cannot write recommended.He submitted that both the experts do not deny the converstation as under:-"a) That they spoke to the Chairman of the College;b) They do not dispute that the transcript / conversation was not spoken between them and the Chairman of the College;The Appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order placing him under suspension and other orders.The challenge Crl.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 21 of 31 in the writ petition was that the Appellant was placed under suspension on account of malafides which he attributed against the Chief Minister.The Appellant in his writ petition referred to various talks between himself and the Chief Minister's wife, which he tape recorded.The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court.While Section 2(xi) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 defines Public Servant to include Vice- Chancellor, Professor, Reader of any University, the definition of Public Servant under Section 21 of IPC does not define Vice-Chancellor or any other employee of University to be a Public Servant, therefore, there is no merit in the instant petitions and they may be dismissed with heavy costs.I have heard learned counsel for the parties.To this effect, the complainant filed the complaint before the Trial Court and vide order dated 15.01.2011, the learned Magistrate issued summons against the petitioners.Earlier for the session 1999-2000, the College was granted approval by AICTE with 60 admissions and thereafter, for the sessions 2000-01, 2001-02, 2005-06 and 2006-07, the College was granted extension of approval by AICTE with 30 admissions for each session.Thereafter, the College was granted extension of approval by AICTE for session 2007-08 and University granted provisional affiliation to the College and accordingly made 27 admissions to the College.On 19.05.2008, the College granted further extension of approval by AICTE for two years, i.e., sessions 2008-09 and 2009-10 with 30 admissions.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 23 of 31The complainant challenged the same vide W.P. (C) No. 9706/ 2009, wherein joint inspection was ordered on 20.08.2009, in which the words NOT RECOMMENDED were added later on.The Complainant Institute challenged the said inspection report vide W.P.(C) No. 9706/2009, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.The complainant challenged the same by way of LPA No. 384/2009, wherein the Division Bench of this Court directed that a joint inspection to be conducted by AICTE and GGSIP University.Accordingly, on 20.08.2009, the joint Crl.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 24 of 31 inspection was conducted and the same deficiencies, as were in the Ist inspection, were found again.On 25.08.2009, the Complainant Institute filed objections to the report.The aforesaid LPA No. 384/2009 was disposed of without granting any relief, thus, the objections of the Complainant Institute were deemed to have been rejected.On 27.03.2010, above named retired Judge found that the Complainant Institute was not fit to be run as an educational institute to conduct B.Pharma Course.Accordingly, this Court while accepting the findings, passed an order dated 05.05.2010 in W.P.(C) No.12724/2009 that students admitted to the roll of the College should be transferred to some other Institute affiliated with the University.Thereafter, the Complainant Institute filed contempt petitions which were dismissed by this Court on different dates as noted above.Meanwhile, on 03.01.2009 complainant filed impugned complaint before the learned Magistrate against ten individuals including the petitioners.Not being satisfied with the pre- summoning evidence led by the complainant, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 14.12.2009 directed the local police to investigate the allegations made in the complaint.Accordingly, after Crl.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 25 of 31 investigation, on 13.01.2010 the police filed their report in which they found that no case was made out against the petitioners.The said officer recorded the statement of Dr. Surinder Singh, who was supposed to have admitted the conversation with Mr. Devender Gupta over the telephone that the words NOT RECOMMENDED were added later on.Whereas, he categorically stated that final conclusion NOT RECOMMENDED was mentioned before all the members of the Committee.He further submitted that Mr. Devender Gupta had telephonic discussion with him and he never told him that report is tempered because the final conclusion NOT RECOMMENDED was made in the report before all the members signed it.He even stated in his statement that as far as recording of his voice on telephone, they usually ignore such calls and try to get rid of this as soon as possible.So whatever the conversation has been cited by Mr. Devender Gupta, i.e., the complainant is meaningless and without any substance and allegation.Considering the report dated 13.01.2010 filed by the police with the opinion that no offence was made out, the learned Trial Court allowed the complainant to file the objections against the said report.But on perusal of the inspection reports, one joint inspection carried out by AICTE and the University and another by Justice C.K. Mahajan, retired Judge of this Court, one can make out that the Complainant Institute could not be extended any approval.The discrepancies found in two reports have been shown in the comparative chart in para 28 above of this judgment.On perusal of the telephonic conversation between Dr. Surender Singh and Mr. Devender Gupta, the complainant, it seems that the complainant is very friendly with Dr. Surender Singh and Professor P.K.Sahu, members of the Inspection Team.Thus, joint team deviated from the earlier pattern of not having any remarks under the heading of "Final Recommendation".M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 29 of 31In the present case, the tape recorded conversation being sought to be led in evidence by the complainant is between the complainant and some third party.Interestingly, subsequently during investigation, the said third party has clarified that there was no forgery and the words NOT RECOMMENDED were written in his presence.No order as to costs.

Cited provisions: Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code