Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash CBI Proceedings Against Doctor Accused Of Malpractice In 2006 PG Entrance Test

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated by the CBI against a doctor facing allegations of malpractice in the entrance test conducted by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) for admission to a postgraduate medical course in 2006.

Justice M Nagaprasanna found that the petitioner's discharge was not warranted based on some witness statements and a trial was needed for the petitioner to challenge these statements.

“With the statements of CWs-55, 56 and the documents it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled for a discharge from the array of accused. Polygraph tests may be the foundation. But, the evidence is on the basis of documents and statements as well. Therefore, these statements will have to be put to test in a trial in which it is for the petitioner to come out clean.”

As per the prosecution case, the petitioner came out successful in the written test securing a high percentage of marks and was accordingly given admission to a postgraduate course. A little later, a paper publication crops up alleging that few of the students who had poor academic careers hitherto had secured high marks in the postgraduate entrance examination.

The Government constituted a Committee to go into the veracity of the allegations made in the conduct of the examination as projected by the media. Subsequently, the matter was entrusted to the CBI as a certain conspiracy came about in the opinion of the Committee, which had opined that all was not well with the conduct of the postgraduate entrance examination.

On investigation, the CBI found that accused No.1 who was the vice chancellor of the University and accused No.2, the then Registrar of the University, between 22-07-2005 and 21-07-2007 along with Dr Hanumantha Prasad, Assistant Registrar of the University had hatched a conspiracy with other accused who were candidates in the entrance examination and pursuant to such criminal conspiracy, question papers of the entrance examination were leaked specifically to persons who had been named as accused in the FIR.

Later, it filed a chargesheet against the accused and the petitioner was named as accused 8 in the case. She was charged under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with Sections 409, 420 and 120B of IPC.

The special court rejected her discharge application. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner moved the High Court. 

The petitioner argued that one of the aspects projected to prove the commission of the offence was that the 16 candidates arrayed as accused had previously secured low marks and suddenly got up to the marks and secured rank in the PGET. On the contrary, this projection is inapplicable to the case of the petitioner as the petitioner has been a bright student throughout the postgraduate exams or otherwise.

Further, the mere result of the polygraph test or the narcotic analysis cannot pin down the petitioner as an accused, unless there is corroborative material that appends to the charge sheet. 

The court observed that the case was riddled with disputed issues of fact. 

“The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that chances of conviction being very bleak, the proceedings should be quashed is unacceptable, as the entire proceedings are shrouded with seriously disputed questions of fact.”

It added that what would unmistakably emerge from the aforesaid test is the knowledge of the episode of crime qua the petitioner and her participation.

Noting that it is trite law that brain mapping or polygraph test is not a conclusive piece of evidence to quash, acquit or convict any accused. It emphasized the need for corroborative material, which was found in the charge sheet and the statements given by witnesses and approvers.

The court also rejected the petitioner's argument that her chances of conviction were low, emphasizing that the trial was necessary to address the disputed issues of fact and that a full-blown trial should proceed in the case. The court cited previous judgments highlighting that quashing proceedings prematurely at this stage would run counter to established legal principles.

Accordingly, it dismissed the petition.

Appearance: Advocate Mahesh S for Petitioner.

Special Public Prosecutor P. Prasanna Kumar for Respondents.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 403

Case Title: Dr Nehal Bansal AND Central Bureau of Investigation

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5341 OF 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order