Srinagar, Feb 14: In a case of brazen official connivance paving the way for an ‘ineligible’ candidate to get admission to MBBS course on the strength of a category certificate issued fraudulently to the beneficiary, the High Court has dismissed the candidate’s petition directing the court below to conclude the trial within six months.
 The investigations in the case have found a former DC had been shown in the official records as ‘Grahati’ (one who runs a watermill or Grahat) to make basis for issuing category certificate to his granddaughter to get admission in MBBS course.
CASE HISTORY:
 The petitioner after passing 10+2 examination had succeeded in getting admission to MBBS course way back in 1990s in Government Medical College, Srinagar under “Other Social Caste” category.
 Then Tehsildar Pulwama on the recommendation of Naib Tehsildar had issued the OSC certificate to the petitioner on the ground that she was daughter of a Grahati.
 On inquiry initiated in a complaint, it was found that petitioner’s father was an officer in SMC and her mother a teacher in Education Department. 
 The inquiry found the revenue officials had allegedly built up a case in favour of petitioner on the ground that her “maternal grandfather was a Grahati.”
 “As the father of the petitioner had gone as Khanadamad, he was taken as Grahati and the petitioner made entitled to OSC certificate, notwithstanding the fact that her parents were government officials drawing handsome salary.”
 Interestingly, the inquiry found even the father-in-law of the petitioner’s father (her maternal grandfather) was a retired Deputy Commissioner and not a Grahati as projected by the revenue officers.
 The inquiry substantiated the complaint and led to registration of case FIR 26 of 1996 under Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption 2006 Police Station, VOK.
 Accordingly, the investigation was concluded as proved against the petitioner and his co-accused. A charge-sheet was presented in the Court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption Srinagar.
LEGAL PROCESS
 The Special Judge Anti Corruption found sufficient grounds to reveal commission of offence under Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-b RPC by the petitioner and her alleged co-conspirators and formally charged them of the aforesaid offence.
 The petitioner challenged trial court order dated May 18, 2009 seeking its quashment before the High Court primarily on the ground that “as the then Deputy Commissioner Pulwama on inquiry had upheld the OSC certificate of the petitioner, there was no reason for trial court to hold the petitioner and other accused to have prima-facie committed offences punishable under Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 2009 Svt. read with    120-b RPC and commence the trial.”
HIGH COURT ORDER
 The single bench of Justice Hasnain Massodi in its judgement dated Feb 4, 2012 observed: ‘The High Court vide order dated 17.07.1997 in SWP 310/1994 (had) directed the Divisional Commissioner Kashmir to examine the genuineness of OSC certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by conducting appropriate inquiry or cause such inquiry to be conducted by Deputy Commissioner Pulwama in accordance with the relevant rules.”
 The Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir . . .  (had initially) entrusted the inquiry to Deputy Commissioner Pulwama who vide his report/order dated 09.09.1997 upheld the OSC certificate of the petitioner.
 The Divisional Commissioner on going through the report/order got it examined by a committee headed by him.
 Rejecting the conclusions drawn by Deputy Commissioner Pulwama, the committee noted: “The income of petitioner’s father, a government officer admittedly exceeded permissible limit of Rs 1 lakh p.a. and further more he was not dependant on the profession of Grahati.”
 The Committee accordingly did not approve the conclusions arrived at by Deputy Commissioner Pulwama.
 Justice Massodi observed: “The application filed by then Divisional Commissioner along with his personal affidavit before the court appears to have gone unnoticed and has not been dealt with by the writ court  in its order dated 18th  February 2000.”
 The court held the Divisional Commissioner cannot be faulted for his having constituted a Committee to examine the Deputy Commissioner’s report and disagree with the conclusions drawn for the reasons recorded.
DIRECTION
 “The petitioner has failed to make out a case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. and quashment of the order of Special Judge Anti-Corruption  dated 18th May 2009 and the proceedings emanating there from.”
 “The petition is accordingly dismissed. The alleged occurrence has taken place way back in 1993 and pendency of the present petition has delayed the trial by two years.”
 “Learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption in the circumstances shall exercise all powers available under Code of Criminal Procedure to ensure that the trial is taken to its logical end with reasonable despatch and as far as possible take up the case at least once in two weeks and conclude the trial within six months from the date of this order,” the court directed.

Lastupdate on : Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:30:00 Makkah time
Lastupdate on : Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:30:00 GMT
Lastupdate on : Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:00:00 IST