1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1425 OF 2009 Mr. Ajit Kumar Oberoi & Ors. ..... Applicants. V/s The State of Maharashtra ..... Respondents. Mr. Rajendra Sorankar for applicants. Mr. Shekhar A. Ingawale for original complainant Nos.1 to 4. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 14TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, the learned Counsel for complainants and the learned APP for the State. 2. Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with the complaint filed against them vide C.R. Nos.11/09, 08/09, 13/09, 06/09, 15/09, 12/09, 05/09, 09/09, 10/09, 03/09, 04/09 registered with Chaturshringhi Police Station, Pune for the offence punishable under section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Number of complaints have been filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Pune by number of students who had taken admission in an Institute which was managed by DINA Institute of Hotel and Business Management. The 2 gist of the complaint is that some time on or around April 2007, an advertisement was issued by the said institute on the Website and in news-papers and various brochures and prospectus were issued giving details of the educational courses run by the said institute. In the brochure, various details were given about the institute and it was stated therein that it is premier educational institute in Pune with internationally recognized affiliation and it was offering top quality professional courses at par with global standards. It was also mentioned that the courses were granted affiliation by University and were recognized by UGC & Union Ministry of HRD. According to complainants, relying on the said representation made in the said brochure, they took admission in the said institute and paid fees to the tune of Rs 2,50,000/-. In the advertisement it was mentioned that the institute was in Model Colony, Pune though, in fact, it was situated at Wadarwadi which is a slum area in Pune. What was represented was that the institute had fully equipped lab and library, hostel and lodging boarding facility and Wi-Fi Campus and Swimming Pool, Gymnasium etc. though, in fact, the institute was operating from temporary small flat. In the complaint, it was also stated that though the tuition fee for PGDBM course which was fixed by the Fee Fixing Panel of University of Pune was only Rs 12,0000/-, the institute has charged more than Rs 2,50,000/- towards fees. Further, it was stated in the complaint that though the representation was made that the said course was full time course, later on, students came to 3 know that the said PGDBM Course is a part time Course. 4. Applicants, therefore, filed an application for anticipatory bail in the Sessions Court. However, the said application was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Pune. Thereafter, present application is filed in this Court. 5. The record indicates that interim protection was granted and an amount of Rs 7 lakh was also deposited by the applicants in view of the direction given by this Court by order dated 24/08/2009. The learned Single Judge was also informed that Shikshan Shulk Samiti was appointed by the Government for deciding fee structure of the institute. However, later on, it transpired that Shikshan Shulk Committee was appointed for determining the fee structure for the year 2009 and not for the year 2007. 6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of applicants submitted that there were two groups in the University and one group was against the institute and, therefore, a letter was issued by the said group in the University, stating that the Course conducted by the institute was a part time course. He submitted that the said order was challenged by the Institute and it was pending in this court for some time and thereafter the matter was remanded back to the respondents. Similarly in respect of fee structure also, Writ Petition was filed by the institute in this Court. He submitted that applicants have shown their bonafides by depositing Rs 4 7 lakhs in this Court. He submitted that some officials of the University had misguided the students. He submitted that the Local Inspection Committee of the University had filed a report and, thereafter, compliance report was filed by the Chairman of the Local Inspection Committee. He submitted that the Director of Technical Education, State of Maharashtra had also granted its permission to conduct the said PGDBM Course with terms and conditions of the State Government applicable to the said institute. He submitted that the institute started with the Course and it was running smoothly and three semesters were completed out of four semesters. However, some vested interest misguided and instigated the students and instead of verifying the facts from the institute they approached the University of Pune for verification. He submitted that now the entire course is being shifted to the new campus which had all modern amenities and the Contractors who were given contract to construct new building could not complete the construction within six months as promised by them and, therefore, there is delay in shifting the campus to the newly constructed building. He submitted that the institute is entitled to have its own fee structure in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ismail Academic Education Vs. State of Karnataka and that the application was made by the institute to the Shikshan Shulk Samiti. However, the said issue is pending before the said Samiti. 7. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on 5 the other hand, invited my attention to the report submitted by the Inquiry Committee which was constituted by the Pune University and the said Inquiry Committee has observed that the fee which was charged by the institute for the said Course was excessive and before charging the fees, institute had not fixed the fees through Shikshan Shulk Samiti. It observed that the institute could charge fees only on two basis viz (i) fee structure issued by the University and (ii) fee structure prescribed by Shikshan Shulk Samiti. The Committee came to the conclusion that the fee structure prescribed by the institute was very excessive. The fee charged by the institute is Rs 2,50,000/- whereas the fee prescribed by the Pune University is Rs 12,000/- per year. The Committee also came to the conclusion that the institute had represented that the said PGDBM Course had dual specialization. However, according to the syllabus prescribed by the University, the said Course could have specialization only in one subject and, therefore, institute did not have any authority to change the curriculum prescribed by the University. The Committee also came to the conclusion that the institute had made representation that PGDBM Course is equivalent to MBA which is factually incorrect. 8 Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, there is some substance in the allegation which is made by students against the institution and, therefore, under these circumstances, in my view, this is not a fit case for grant of 6 anticipatory bail. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. 9. At this stage, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of applicants seeks extension of interim order for a period of two weeks in order to enable the applicants to approach the Apex Court. Interim Order to continue for a period of two weeks. (V.M. KANADE, J.)