Karnataka HC denies doctor's plea against CBI in 2006 PGET malpractice case due to contentious factual issues.
The petitioner/accused filed a criminal petition against the Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases who denied her request for discharge from the list of accused.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, in a single bench, rejected the petitioner's argument that the case should be quashed due to slim conviction chances. This is because the case involves heavily disputed facts and would go against the KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH judgment if proceedings were closed.
Advocate Mahesh S. represented the petitioner/accused, and Special Public Prosecutor P. Prasanna Kumar represented the respondent/CBI.
In brief, the petitioner, a doctor, passed a postgraduate entrance test with high marks, but controversy arose when some students with previously poor academic records also scored well. This prompted a government committee investigation, which was later taken over by the CBI. The CBI alleged a conspiracy involving the accused, including the University Vice-Chancellor, Registrar, and Assistant Registrar, along with other candidates in the entrance examination.
A criminal conspiracy led to the leakage of entrance examination question papers to specific individuals named in the FIR. The CBI investigated, filed a charge sheet, and included the petitioner as an accused. The petitioner sought a court direction to register her postgraduate degree, but it was denied due to the pending charge sheet. The petitioner then filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.PC to be discharged from the list of accused. The court rejected this application, along with similar applications from other individuals. The subject petition challenges this rejection and the entire proceedings related to the case.
Considering the case's facts and circumstances, the High Court observed that the polygraph test results were unfavorable to the petitioner. The CBI was planning to conduct a brain mapping analysis next. The preliminary findings from the brain mapping indicated that some individuals possessed knowledge of the activities associated with the targeted words of primary encoding, suggesting the petitioner's awareness of the alleged criminal episode.
The Court also acknowledged that both brain mapping and polygraph tests alone are not conclusive evidence for quashing, acquitting, or convicting any accused. They emphasized the need for corroborative material in such cases.
The Court considered the statements of CWs-55 and 56, along with the documents. It concluded that the petitioner is not eligible for discharge from the list of accused. While the polygraph test may serve as a foundation, the evidence is also based on documents and statements. Therefore, these statements must be tested in a trial, and it is the petitioner's responsibility to establish her innocence.
The Court found no merit in the petition and saw no reason to interfere with the order issued by the lower court.
TAGS: Court Merit Petition Error Interference Order Concerned court
