Bangalore District Court
Cbi/Acb/Bengaluru vs A1. Sree Sarada Educational Rural … on 18 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
-: Present :-
Smt. L.J. Bhavani, B.A., LL.M.,
XVII Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate,
(Spl. Court for CBI Cases) Bengaluru.
C.C.No.17622/2017
Dated 18th Day of May, 2026
COMPLAINANT :
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Anti Corruption Branch,
Bengaluru.
[By learned Sr. P.P.]
// Versus //
ACCUSED :
1. Sree Sarada Educational, Rural
Development and Animal
Welfare Society, Akuledu,
Anananthapura District.
Society registered with the
Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Anananthapura
District. Government of Andhra
Pradesh.
Represented by its Secretary
Sri. S. Seshadri Reddy (Accused
No.2).
2. Sri. S. Seshadri Reddy,
S/o Late Rajasekhar Reddy,
Major, Correspondent, Sree
Sarada Education (D.EI.Ed. &
B.Ed.) College, Akuledu,
Ananthapura. Andhra Pradesh.
2 C.C.No.17622/2017
R/o 4th Road, Near Nethaji
Government High School,
Ananthapura - 515 001.
3. Sri. K. Obulapathy,
S/o Late K. Obulesu, Major,
Secondary Grade Teacher, MPP
Government School,
Government of Andhra Pradesh
Kotanka, Ananthapura District.
Andhra Pradesh.
R/o No.3/10/6, Tapovanam,
Ananthapura District.
(Sri.K.R.V. Advocate for
accused No.1 and 2).
(Sri.S.V.V. Advocate for
accused No.3).
JUDGMENT
The charge sheet submitted by the Inspector of
Police, CBI, ACB, Bengaluru against the accused No.1 to
3 for the offences punishable under Section 120 B r/w
420, 468, 471 and 473 of IPC and the substantive
offences thereof.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is as under :
On 21.05.2007, Sree Sarada Education, Rural
Development and Animal Welfare Society i.e. accused
No.1 was registered with the District Registrar of
Assurances, Ananthapur, under the Societies
Registration Act vide No.35/2001 and on 20.09.2010 Sri
S. Seshadri Reddy i.e. accused No.2 became the
3 C.C.No.17622/2017secretary of accused No.1 society. The accused No.2 has
been running a school named Sri. Sarada Vidyaniketan
English Medium School at Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu
Village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapur District,
Andhra Pradesh for classes 1 to 7 from the academic
year 2010-11. This school has 3 building structures
namely (i) G+1 structure situated opposite to the Main
Gate along west side, (ii) Ground floor and first floor (first
floor with only outer walls without roof) along south side
and (iii) A temporary shed with asbestos-sheet-roofing. It
has a total built up area of 272.18 square meter (2,930
square feet), including the temporary shed of 62.37
square meter (671 square feet) and a total land area of
1,119.30 square meter (12,048 square feet).
3. Further, on 27.02.2015, the National Council
for Teacher Education issued a public notice inviting
applications for starting new education colleges/increase
in intake of students. The NCTE Regulations, 2014
under which the applications were processed, specified
the norms and standards for infrastructural facilities
and as per Clause 6.1 (ii) of Appendix-4, the built-up
area and the land area required for running D.El.Ed.
Plus B.Ed., Course is 3,000 square meter and the
required documents has to be submitted for grant of
formal recognition as per NCTE Regulations 2014.
4 C.C.No.17622/2017
4. It is alleged that accused No.1 represented by
accused No.2 and 3 entered into a criminal conspiracy
and in pursuance of conspiracy, schemed to get formal
recognition for running D.El.Ed., and B.Ed., Courses in
the name of Sree Sarada Education (D.El.Ed. and B.Ed.)
College, Akuledu, Ananthapur District under the aegis of
accused No.1 society with the available infrastructure of
Sri. Sarada Vidyaniketan School and without having the
infrastructure required for running the said composite
course as specified in the NCTE Regulations, 2014. In
pursuance of criminal conspiracy, on 22.05.2015
accused No.2 and accused No.3 have re-constituted the
Executive Committee of accused No.1 Society and
elected Smt. K. Lakshmi Devi who is wife of accused
No.3 as the treasurer of the accused No.1 Society. The
accused persons also changed the address of the
accused No.1 society from Kandlapalli village to
Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu Village, Ananthapur District and
on 26.05.2015, they got the property at Sy.No.241/2
Akuledu village, transferred from the name of accused
No.2 to the name of accused No.1 Society.
5. Further it is alleged that in pursuance of
criminal conspiracy, accused No.2 and 3 have obtained
NOC dated 25.05.2015 from State Council for
Educational Research and Training (SCERT), Hyderabad
for D.El.Ed. Course and NOC dated 29.05.2015 from Sri.
5 C.C.No.17622/2017
Krishnadevaraya University, Ananthapur District for
B.Ed. Course. During this period, accused No.3 also
approached Sri. B. Thirupalu, Engineer and Proprietor,
M/s Apex Constructions, Ananthapur district and
obtained a building plan in the name of Sree Sarada
Education D.El.Ed. and B.Ed. College at Sy.No.241/2,
Akuledu Village, Ananthapur district showing ground
floor plus three floors, whereas the available buildings at
this survey number had only ground floor plus first floor.
Further accused No.3 and 2 arranged funds and
obtained demand drafts dated 29.05.2015 and
03.06.2015 respectively towards processing fee for the
D.El.Ed. and B.Ed. Courses applications.
6. It is further alleged that in pursuance of
criminal conspiracy, accused No.2 and 3 submitted the
online applications in the name of accused No.1 Society
for obtaining formal recognition for D.El.Ed. and B.Ed.
Courses on 29.05.2015 and 05.06.2015 respectively.
Accused No.2 and 3 with dishonest and fraudulent
intention and with the intention to cheat the NCTE and
to obtain the formal recognition, furnished the details of
the building in the applications as having multipurpose
hall, seminar room, library, arts and crafts room etc.
though such rooms were not available and they further
submitted the hard copy of the applications to the NCTE
on 18.06.2015. Based on the infrastructural and the
6 C.C.No.17622/2017
instructional details furnished by accused No.2 and 3 in
the applications, the NCTE processed the applications
and deputed the visiting team to conduct inspection of
Sree Sarada Education D.El.Ed. and B.Ed College and
the visiting team conducted the inspection of the college
on 11.02.2016.
7. It is further alleged that in pursuance of
criminal conspiracy and in order to cheat the NCTE,
accused No.3 and 2 forged and created Land Conversion
Proceedings dated 15.11.2015 and the Building
Completion Certificate dated 25.08.2015 to falsely show
that the agricultural land at Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu
village can be used for running institution and that
sufficient buildings were available at this land to run the
college. They forged the above certificates to show as if
the same were issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ananthapur District and the Mandal Engineering Officer,
Singanamal Mandal, Ananthapur District and for this
purpose, on the instruction of accused No.3, accused
No.2 got the seal i.e. rubber stamp in the name of
Mandal Engineering Officer, Singanamal Mandal, made
and affixed the same on the building completion
certificate, thereby making or possessing counterfeit seal
with intent to commit forgery. The accused No.2 and 3
then submitted these documents to the visiting team,
thus, used such forged documents as genuine. The
7 C.C.No.17622/2017
accused No.2 and 3 also intentionally misrepresented
the facts by showing that multipurpose hall with seating
capacity of 200 persons and a dais with a total area of
2,234.50 square feet, a Library cum resource center with
an area of 1,580.50 square feet and ICT resource center
of 2,234.50 square feet etc., are available, whereas the
entire buildings consisting of total 8 rooms, apart from
the office cum correspondent room. The forged building
plan showed a total built up area of 27,536.95 square
feet (2,558.26 square meter), whereas the actual
available buildings measured only a total built up area of
272.18 square meter (2,930 square feet), including the
temporary shed of 62.37 square meter (671 square feet).
8. Further, based on the documents namely the
building plan and the building completion certificate
submitted by accused No.2 to the visiting team, the
Southern Regional Committee of the NCTE in its meeting
held on 15.02.2016, decided that show cause notice be
issued to accused No.1 for the reasons that the built up
area was not adequate for 2 programs, the building plan
was not approved by the competent authority and the
CD video-graphed during inspection, showed asbestos
roof building.
9. Further, it is alleged that with the fraudulent
and dishonest intention of circumventing the deficiencies
pointed out by the SRC/NCTE and in pursuance of
8 C.C.No.17622/2017
criminal conspiracy to somehow obtain the formal
recognition, accused No.3 obtained another false
building plan from Sri. B. Thirupalu, Engineer and
Proprietor, M/s Apex Constructions, Ananthapur
District showing a total built up area of 3,281 square
meter (35,324.87 square feet), whereas the actual
buildings had a total built-up area of 272.18 square
meter (2,930 square feet), including the temporary shed
of 62.37 square meter (671 square feet), which is grossly
inadequate in terms of the NCTE Regulations, 2014. In
order to falsely show that the building plan was issued
by the competent authority, on the instructions of
accused No.3, accused No.2 got the seal i.e. rubber
stamp, made in the name of Panchayat Secretary,
Akuledu Gram Panchayat, Singanamal Mandal and
affixed the same on the building plan, thereby making or
possessing counterfeit seal with intent to commit forgery.
By this act, accused No.2 and 3 also committed forgery
of these documents and then used such forged
documents as genuine. Thereafter, accused No.2 and 3
submitted the forged building plan to the NCTE by a
letter dated 17.02.2016 and made the SRC, NCTE to
believe that the required built up area was available and
thereby fraudulently and dishonestly induced the SRC,
NCTE to issue the Letter of Intent dated 20.02.2016 and
NCTE issued the Letter of Intent subject to the
submission of proof of removal of the asbestos sheets
9 C.C.No.17622/2017
and duly certified by the Engineer approving the building
completion certificate and submission of the fixed
deposit receipts in the joint name of the institution and
the Regional Director, NCTE towards the endowment
fund and the reserve fund of Rs.5.00 lakhs and Rs.7.00
lakhs respectively per program for a period of 5 years.
But accused No.2 and 3 in pursuant to the criminal
conspiracy, did not remove the asbestos sheets from the
building and did not produce the FDRs towards the
endowment fund and the reserve fund, but falsely
induced the NCTE and fraudulently obtained the formal
recognition orders for the D.El.Ed. and the B.Ed courses,
on the last date fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India i.e. 02.05.2016.
10. Further, it is alleged that after obtaining the
formal recognition order, accused No.2 admitted 30
students in the D.El.Ed. Course in the college during the
academic year 2016-17, through the Convener, DEECET
Government of Andhra Pradesh and allotted 4 students
under the management quota. Accused No.2 also
received an amount of Rs.1.22 lakhs from the Convener,
DEECET, Guntur, in the account No.10873694841 of
the institution maintained in SBI, Sai Nagar Branch,
Ananthapur towards fees for the 30 candidates. Thus
the above said acts of the accused No.1 to 3 constitute
offences punishable u/Sec.120 B r/w 420, 468, 471 and
10 C.C.No.17622/2017
473 of IPC and the substantive offences thereof. The
criminal acts of accused No.3 were committed by him
outside of the purview of the discharge of his official duty
and therefore, no sanction for his prosecution is
required. Hence, the accused has committed the offence
punishable under Section 120 B r/w 420, 468, 471 and
473 of IPC and the substantive offences thereof.
11. After receipt of Charge Sheet, this Court took
the cognizance of the offences punishable u/Sec. 120 B
r/w 420, 468, 471 and 473 of IPC and the substantive
offences thereof against the accused persons and
summons issued to the accused No.1 to 3 and they were
appeared before the Court and enlarged on bail. The
charge sheet copies were furnished to them as required
u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
12. Heard both sides on framing of charge. Since
there were prima-facie materials available on record,
charge was framed and it was read over to the accused
persons, they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
13. In order to prove the case, prosecution has
examined 36 witnesses as PW.1 to 36 and got marked
documents as Ex.P.1 to 114 and closed its side evidence.
11 C.C.No.17622/2017
14. The incriminating evidence prevailing against
the accused No.1 to 3, the statement U/sec.313 of the
Cr.P.C. was recorded and read over to the accused No.1
to 3. The accused No.1 to 3 denied the same as false and
they have not chosen to adduce any evidence on their
behalf.
15. I have heard the arguments of the Ld. Sr.
Public Prosecutor and Ld. Counsels for accused No.1 to
3. The Ld. Counsel for accused No.3 files memorandum
of arguments u/Sec.314 of Cr.P.C. I have perused the
materials available on record.
16. On the materials available on record and also
on the arguments advanced by both the parties, the
points that arose for my consideration are as under;
1) Whether the prosecution proves
beyond reasonable doubt that, the
accused No.1 to 3 entered into criminal
conspiracy during the year 2015-16 and
in pursuant of such conspiracy,
fraudulently and dishonestly
reconstituted the executive committee of
accused No.1 Society on 22.05.2015 and
changed the address of accused No.1
Society from Kandlapalli Village to
Sy.No.241/2 Akuledu Village,
Ananthapura District and got the
property at Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu
Village transferred from the name of
accused No.2 to the name of accused
No.1 Society on 26.05.2015 and
obtained NOC dated 25.05.2015 from
12 C.C.No.17622/2017
the SCERT, Hyderabad for D.El.Ed.
Course and NOC dated 29.05.2015 from
Sri. Krishnadevaraya University,
Ananthapura District for B.Ed. Course
and accused No.3 approached C.W.11
and obtained building plan in the name
of Sree Sarada Education (D.El.Ed. and
B.Ed.) College at Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu
Village, Ananthapura District showing
Ground Floor Plus three floors, whereas
the available building only ground floor
plus first floor and accused No.3 and 2
arranged funds and obtained Demand
Drafts dated 29.05.2015 and 03.06.2015
respectively towards processing fees and
submitted online applications in the
name of accused No.1 Society for
obtaining formal recognition for D.El.Ed.
and B.Ed. Course on 29.05.2015 and
05.06.2015 respectively with fraudulent
intention to cheat the NCTE and
obtained the formal recognition by
furnishing details of building in the
applications as having multipurpose
hall, seminar room, library, arts and
crafts room etc. though such rooms
were not available and further submitted
the hard copy of the said application to
NCTE on 18.06.2015 and the accused
No.2 and 3 had forged and created Land
Conversion Proceedings dated
15.11.2015 of Revenue Divisional
Officer, Ananthapura District and
Building Completion Certificate dated
25.08.2015 of Mandal Engineering
Officer, Singanamala Mandal,
Ananthapura District and for the
purpose of forgery, on the instruction of
accused No.3, the accused No.2 got the
seal i.e. rubber stamp in the name of
13 C.C.No.17622/2017
Mandal Engineering Officer,
Singanamala Mandal made and affixed
the same on the Building Completion
Certificate and submitted these
documents to visiting team as genuine
documents and accused No.2 and 3
intentionally misrepresented the facts in
respect built up area of 2,558.26 Square
meter whereas actual available built up
area is 272.18 square meter including
temporary shed and after issuance of
show cause notice by SRC, the accused
No.3 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy
obtained another false building plan
from C.W.11 showing total built up area
of 3,281 square meter, whereas actual
building had a total built up area of
272.18 square meter including the
temporary shed and the accused No.2 on
the instruction of accused No.3, got the
seal i.e. rubber stamp made in the name
of Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu Gram
Panchayat, Singanamala (Mdl) and
affixed the same on the building plan
and thereby making or processing
counterfeit seal with intent to commit
forgery and submitted the forged
building plan to NCTE by a letter dated
17.02.2016 and made the SRC, NCTE to
believe that the required built up area
was available and thereby fraudulently
and dishonestly induced the SRC, NCTE
to issue the Letters of Intent dated
20.02.2016 and also fraudulently
obtained formal recognition order dated
02.05.2016 for D.El.Ed. and B.Ed.
Courses without producing fixed deposit
receipts and without removing asbestos
sheets from the building and thereafter,
accused No.2 admitted 30 students in
14 C.C.No.17622/2017
D.El.Ed. course in the college during the
academic year 2016-17 and received
Rs.1,22,000/- from Convener, DEECET,
Guntur in the SBI bank account of
institution towards fees for the 30
students and thereby committed the
offence punishable u/Sec.120 B r/w
Sec.420, 468, 471 and 473 of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution proves
beyond reasonable doubt that on the
above said period, the accused No.1 to 3
in pursuant of criminal conspiracy
hatched among them, fraudulently and
dishonestly reconstituted the executive
committee of accused No.1 Society on
22.05.2015 and changed the address of
accused No.1 Society from Kandlapalli
Village to Sy.No.241/2 Akuledu Village,
Ananthapura District and got the
property at Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu
Village transferred from the name of
accused No.2 to the name of accused
No.1 Society on 26.05.2015 and
obtained NOC dated 25.05.2015 from
the SCERT, Hyderabad for D.El.Ed.
Course and NOC dated 29.05.2015 from
Sri. Krishnadevaraya University,
Ananthapura District for B.Ed. Course
and accused No.3 approached C.W.11
and obtained building plan in the name
of Sree Sarada Education (D.El.Ed. and
B.Ed.) College at Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu
Village, Ananthapura District showing
Ground Floor Plus three floors, whereas
the available building only ground floor
plus first floor and accused No.3 and 2
arranged funds and obtained Demand
Drafts dated 29.05.2015 and 03.06.2015
respectively towards processing fees and
15 C.C.No.17622/2017
submitted online applications in the
name of accused No.1 Society for
obtaining formal recognition for D.El.Ed.
and B.Ed. Course on 29.05.2015 and
05.06.2015 respectively with fraudulent
intention to cheat the NCTE and
obtained the formal recognition by
furnishing details of building in the
applications as having multipurpose
hall, seminar room, library, arts and
crafts room etc. though such rooms
were not available and further submitted
the hard copy of the said application to
NCTE on 18.06.2015 and the accused
No.2 and 3 had submitted forged and
created Land Conversion Proceedings
dated 15.11.2015 of Revenue Divisional
Officer, Ananthapura District and
Building Completion Certificate dated
25.08.2015 of Mandal Engineering
Officer, Singanamala Mandal,
Ananthapura District to visiting team as
genuine documents and for the purpose
of forgery, on the instruction of accused
No.3, accused No.2 got the seal in the
name of Mandal Engineering Office,
Singanamala Mandal, made and affixed
the same on the Building Competition
Certificate and accused No.2 and 3
intentionally misrepresented the facts in
respect built up area of 2,558.26 Square
meter whereas actual available built up
area is 272.18 square meter including
temporary shed and after issuance of
show cause notice by SRC, the accused
No.3 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy
obtained another false building plan
from C.W.11 showing total built up area
of 3,281 square meter, whereas actual
building had a total built up area of
16 C.C.No.17622/2017
272.18 square meter including the
temporary shed and the accused No.2 on
the instruction of accused No.3, got the
seal i.e. rubber stamp made in the name
of Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu Gram
Panchayat, Singanamala (Mdl) and
affixed the same on the building plan
and submitted the forged building plan
to NCTE by a letter dated 17.02.2016
and made the SRC, NCTE to believe that
the required built up area was available
and thereby fraudulently and
dishonestly induced the SRC, NCTE to
issue the letters of intent dated
20.02.2016 and also fraudulently
obtained formal recognition order dated
02.05.2016 for D.El.Ed. and B.Ed.
Courses without producing fixed deposit
receipts and without removing asbestos
sheets from the building and thereafter,
accused No.2 admitted 30 students in
D.El.Ed. course in the college during the
academic year 2016-17 and received
Rs.1,22,000/- from Convener, DEECET,
Guntur in the SBI bank account of the
institution towards fees for the 30
students and thereby committed the
offence punishable u/Sec.420 of IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution proves
beyond reasonable doubt that, the
accused No.1 to 3 in pursuant of
criminal conspiracy, accused No.3
fraudulently obtained building plan from
C.W.11 in the name of Sree Sarada
Education (D.El.Ed. and B.Ed.) College
at Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu Village,
Ananthapura District showing Ground
Floor Plus three floors, whereas the
17 C.C.No.17622/2017
available building only ground floor plus
first floor and the accused No.2 and 3
had forged and created Land Conversion
Proceedings dated 15.11.2015 of
Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapura
District and Building Completion
Certificate dated 25.08.2015 of Mandal
Engineering Officer, Singanamala
Mandal, Ananthapura District and for
the purpose of forgery, on the
instruction of accused No.3, the accused
No.2 got the seal i.e. rubber stamp in the
name of Mandal Engineering Officer,
Singanamala Mandal made and affixed
the same on the Building Completion
Certificate and submitted these
documents to visiting team as genuine
documents and the accused No.3 in
pursuance of criminal conspiracy
obtained another false building plan
from C.W.11 showing total built up area
of 3,281 square meter, whereas actual
building had a total built up area of
272.18 square meter including the
temporary shed and the accused No.2 on
the instruction of accused No.3, got the
seal i.e. rubber stamp made in the name
of Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu Gram
Panchayat, Singanamala (Mdl) and
affixed the same on the building plan
and submitted the forged building plan
to NCTE by a letter dated 17.02.2016
and made the SRC, NCTE to believe that
the required built up area was available
and thereby fraudulently and
dishonestly induced the SRC, NCTE to
issue the Letter of Intent dated
20.02.2016 and also fraudulently
obtained formal recognition order dated
02.05.2016 for D.El.Ed. and B.Ed.
18 C.C.No.17622/2017
Courses and used the forged documents
for the purpose of cheating and thereby
committed the offence punishable
u/Sec.468 of IPC ?
4) Whether the prosecution proves
beyond reasonable doubt that, the
accused No.1 to 3 in pursuant of
criminal conspiracy, accused No.3
dishonestly obtained false building plan
from C.W.11 in the name of Sree Sarada
Education (D.El.Ed. and B.Ed.) College
at Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu Village,
Ananthapura District showing Ground
Floor Plus three floors, whereas the
available building only ground floor plus
first floor and the accused No.2 and 3
had forged and created Land Conversion
Proceedings dated 15.11.2015 of
Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapura
District and Building Completion
Certificate dated 25.08.2015 of Mandal
Engineering Officer, Singanamala
Mandal, Ananthapura District and for
the purpose of forgery, on the
instruction of accused No.3, the accused
No.2 got the seal i.e. rubber stamp in the
name of Mandal Engineering Officer,
Singanamala Mandal made and affixed
the same on the Building Completion
Certificate and submitted these
documents to visiting team as genuine
documents and the accused No.3
obtained another false building plan
from C.W.11 showing total built up area
of 3,281 square meter, whereas actual
building had a total built up area of
272.18 square meter including the
temporary shed and the accused No.2 on
the instruction of accused No.3, got the
19 C.C.No.17622/2017
seal i.e. rubber stamp made in the name
of Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu Gram
Panchayat, Singanamala (Mdl) and
affixed the same on the building plan
and submitted the forged building plan
to NCTE by a letter dated 17.02.2016
and dishonestly used the said
documents as genuine documents
knowingly the said documents are forged
documents and thereby committed the
offence punishable u/Sec.471 of IPC ?
5) Whether the prosecution proves
beyond reasonable doubt that, the
accused No.1 to 3 in pursuant of
criminal conspiracy, for the purpose of
forgery, on the instruction of accused
No.3, the accused No.2 got the seal i.e.
rubber stamp in the name of Mandal
Engineering Officer, Singanamala
Mandal made and affixed the same on
the Building Completion Certificate
dated 25.08.2015 and also got another
seal i.e. rubber stamp made in the name
of Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu Gram
Panchayat, Singanamala (Mdl) and
affixed the same on the building plan
falsely show that the said documents
were issued by the competent authority
and thereby used the said counterfeit
seals with an intention to commit forgery
and thereby committed the offence
punishable u/Sec.473 of IPC ?
6) What order or sentence?
17. My findings to the above points are as under;
POINT NO.1 : In the Affirmative
POINT NO.2 : In the Affirmative
20 C.C.No.17622/2017
POINT NO.3 : In the Affirmative
POINT NO.4 : In the Affirmative
POINT NO.5 : In the Affirmative
POINT NO.6 : As per the final order
for the following;
REASONS
18. POINT NO.1 to 5 : Since these points are
interlinked, to avoid repetition and for the sake of
brevity, they are together taken for consideration.
19. The prosecution has prosecuted the accused
persons for the offences punishable under Sections 120
B r/w Sec.420, 468, 471 and 473 of IPC and the
substantive offences thereof. It is needless to say that,
the burden of proving the guilt of the accused for the
alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt is on the
prosecution. It is the cardinal principle of criminal law
that every person is presumed to be innocent until the
contrary is proved. Therefore, the entire burden is on the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons for
the alleged offences beyond all reasonable doubts.
20. In order to prove the guilt of the accused
persons, the prosecution has to prove all the necessary
ingredients of the offences leveled against the accused
persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, for
better understanding and appreciation of the evidence
21 C.C.No.17622/2017
on record, it is just and proper to refer the
ingredients/elements necessary to constitute the offence
leveled against the accused persons.
21. Section 120 A of IPC gives definition of
criminal conspiracy and Section 120B of the IPC
provides punishment for committing the criminal
conspiracy. Under Section 120-A, the criminal
conspiracy is defined as under;
When two or more persons agree to do
or cause to be done,-
(1) An illegal act; or
(2) an act which is not illegal, by illegal
means, such an agreement is designated
a criminal conspiracy.
Provided, no agreement except an
agreement to commit an offence shall
amount to a criminal conspiracy unless
some criminal act conspiracy besides the
agreement is done by one or more parties
to such agreement in pursuant thereof.
22. On going through the above provision, it is
clear that the following are the necessary ingredients to
constitute the criminal conspiracy.
(i) There should be an agreement between
the parties who are alleged to conspire.
(ii) Such agreement should be either for
doing an illegal act or for doing an act by
illegal means.
22 C.C.No.17622/2017
23. The above provision does not contemplate the
agreement shall be in writing. Therefore, the agreement
may be express or implied or in part express or implied.
24. In a decision reported in (2002) 7 SCC 334 in
between Mohd. Khalid Vs. State of West Bengal, wherein
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the elements of
criminal conspiracy have been stated to be (a) an object
to be accomplished, (b) a plan or scheme embodying
means to accomplish that object, (c) an agreement or
understanding between two or more of the accused
persons whereby they become definitely committed to co-
operate for the accomplishment of the object by means
embodied in the agreement, or by an effectual means
and (d) in the jurisdiction where the statute required an
overt act. The essence of a criminal conspiracy is the
unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence is
complete when the combination is framed.
25. Sec. 420 of IPC reads as under –
whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly
induces the person deceived to deliver
any property to any person or to make,
alter or destroy the whole or any part of
the valuable security, or any thing
which is signed or sealed and which is
capable of being converted into a
valuable security shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to 7 years and
shall also be liable to be fine.
23 C.C.No.17622/2017
26. From the above provision, it is clear that, in
order to constitute the offence punishable under section
420 of the IPC, the following ingredients has to be
proved;
i) there must be a deception i.e. the accused
must have deceived someone.
ii) that by the said deception, the accused
must induce a person to deliver any property
or to make, alter or destroy whole or part of
the valuable security or anything which is
signed or sealed and which is capable of
being converted into the valuable property.
iii) that the accused did so dishonestly.
27. Sec.415 of the IPC provides definition of
cheating which reads as under;
Whoever, by deceiving any person,
fraudulently or dishonestly induces the
person so deceived to deliver any property to
any person, or to consent that any person
shall intentionally retain any property, or
induces the person so deceived to do or omit
to do anything which he would not do or omit
if he were not so deceived, and which act or
omission causes or is likely to cause damage
or harm to that person in body, mind,
reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.
Explanation : A dishonest concealment of fact
is a deception with the meaning of this
section.
28. On reading of the above provision, it is clear
that, the necessary ingredients of cheating are ;
(i) deception of any person ;
24 C.C.No.17622/2017
(ii)(a) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that
person to deliver any property to any person or
to consent that any person shall retain any
property ;
(b) intentionally inducing that person to do or
omit to do anything which he would not do or
omit if he were not so deceived, and which act
or omission causes or is likely to cause
damage or harm to that person in body, mind,
reputation or property.
29. Section 415 read with Section 420 IPC
indicates that fraudulent or dishonest inducement on
the part of the accused must be at the inception and not
at a subsequent stage.
30. The offence punishable under Section 468 of
the IPC is concerned, it has to be read along with Section
463 and 464 of the IPC. Section 463 of the IPC gives
definition for the offence ‘forgery’, Section 464 of the IPC
deals with making of false documents and Section 468 of
the IPC deals with forgery for the purpose of cheating.
31. The term ‘forgery’ is defined under Section
463 of the IPC as under;
“Section 463 : Whoever makes any
false document or false electronic record
or part of the document or part of the
electronic record, with an intention to
cause damage or injury to the public or
to any person or to support any claim or
title or to cause any person to part with
the property or to enter into any express
25 C.C.No.17622/2017or implied contract, or with an intent to
commit fraud or that fraud may be
committed, commits forgery.
32. Section 464 of IPC deals with making a false
document or electronic records which reads as under;
A person is said to make a false
document or false electronic record —
First — Who dishonestly or fraudulently
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a
document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic
record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any electronic signature on any
electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the
execution of a document or the
authenticity of the electronic signature,with the intention of causing it to be
believed that such document or part of
document, electronic record or electronic
signature was made, signed, sealed,
executed, transmitted or affixed by or by
the authority of a person by whom or by
whose authority he knows that it was not
made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed;
or
Secondly — Who, without lawful
authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by
cancellation or otherwise, alters a
document or an electronic record in any
material part thereof, after it has been
made, executed or affixed with electronic
signature either by himself or by any
other person, whether such person be
living or dead at the time of such
alteration; or
26 C.C.No.17622/2017
Thirdly — Who dishonestly or
fraudulently causes any person to sign,
seal, execute or alter a document or an
electronic record or to affix his electronic
signature on any electronic record
knowing that such person by reason of
unsoundness of mind or intoxication
cannot, or that by reason of deception
practiced upon him, he does not know
the contents of the document or
electronic record or the nature of the
alteration.
33. On going through the above provisions, it is
clear that, in order to constitute the offence of forgery,
there should be ;
1. Making of false document or electronic
record or part of it.
2. Such making of the false document or
electronic record or part of it is with an
intention to
(a) to cause damage or injury to (i) public
or (ii) any person or
(b) to support any claim or title or
(c) to cause any person to part with the
property or
(d) to cause any person to enter into
express or implied contract or
(e) to commit fraud or that fraud may be
committed.
34. In order to prove the forgery, the prosecution
has to prove the above elements in the crime.
27 C.C.No.17622/2017
35. The term ‘making of the false documents’
under Section 464 of the IPC implies that it must be a
document or electronic record or part of it, dishonestly
or fraudulently made and that should have been made,
signed, sealed or executed with an intention of causing
belief that it was made or executed by authority of a
person who did not make or execute it and with the
knowledge that it was not so made or executed.
36. Section 468 of IPC deals with punishment for
forgery for purpose of cheating and it reads as under ;
Whoever commits forgery, intending that
the document or electronic record forged
shall be used for the purpose of cheating
shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
37. In order to bring home the offence under
Section 468 of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove the
following facts;
i) that the document has been forged as
contemplated in Section 463 of the IPC
ii) that the accused forged the said
document
iii) that the accused did so for the
purpose of cheating.
38. So far as the offence under Section 471 of the
IPC is concerned, Section 471 of the IPC deals with
28 C.C.No.17622/2017
using of the forged document or electronic records as
genuine and punishment prescribed for it. It reads as
under;
Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly
uses as genuine any document or
electronic record which he knows or has
reason to believe to be a forged
document or electronic record shall be
punished in the same manner as if he
had forged such document or electronic
record.
39. On going through the above provision, the
necessary ingredients of the said offence are that ;
i) the document or electronic record
concerned was forged one to the
knowledge of the accused, or is having
reason to believe it to be a forged
document ; and
ii) the accused fraudulently or
dishonestly used such
document/electronic record as genuine.
40. The forged document or electronic record is
defined under Section 470 of IPC as under ;
‘A false document or electronic record
made wholly or in part by forgery is
designated ‘a forged document or
electronic record’.
41. So far as the offence under Section 473 of IPC
is concerned, Section 473 of IPC deals with making or
processing counterfeit seals etc., with intent to commit
29 C.C.No.17622/2017
forgery and punishment prescribed for it. It reads as
under;
Whoever makes or counterfeits any seal,
plate or other instrument for making an
impression, intending that the same
shall be used for the purpose of
committing any forgery which would be
punishable under any section of this
Chapter other than section 467, or, with
such intent, has in his possession any
such seal, plate or other instrument,
knowing the same to be counterfeit,
shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
42. On going through the above provision, the
necessary ingredients of the said offence are that ;
i) making or counterfeiting any seal,
plate or other instrument for making an
impression
ii) with an intention to be used for the
purpose of committing any forgery.
43. Section 24 of IPC gives definition of
‘dishonestly’ which reads as under ;
Whoever does anything with the
intention of causing wrongful gain to one
person or wrongful loss to another
person, is said to do that thing
“dishonestly”.
30 C.C.No.17622/2017
44. Section 25 of IPC gives definition of
‘fraudulently’ which reads as under ;
“A person is said to do a thing
fraudulently if he does that thing with
intent to defraud but not otherwise”.
45. With the above aspects, now, the evidence on
record is to be meticulously analysed so as to determine
whether the prosecution has proved all the necessary
ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused
persons. On going through the prosecution case, it is
clear that the major offence alleged against the accused
persons is cheating of NCTE in the matter of taking
recognition for D.El.Ed. and B.Ed., courses for accused
No.1 institution with dishonest intention to cheat the
NCTE and in that connection the accused persons had
also committed the offence of conspiracy, creating of
false documents, using the forged documents as
genuine for the purpose of cheating and using of
counterfeit seals with an intention to commit forgery.
46. As per the prosecution case, on 21.05.2007,
Sree Sarada Education, Rural Development and Animal
Welfare Society i.e. accused No.1 was registered with the
District Registrar of Assurances, Ananthapur, under the
Societies Registration Act vide No.35/2001 and on
20.09.2010 Sri S. Seshadri Reddy i.e. accused No.2
became the secretary of accused No.1 society.
31 C.C.No.17622/2017
47. The attested copies of the Certificate of
Registration under the Andhra Pradesh Societies
Registration Act No. 35 of 2001 marked under Ex.P-1, 2
and 4 reveals that “Sree Sarada Educational Rural
Development and Animal Welfare Society, Kandlapalli
village, Koppalakonda Post, Pamidi Mandal,
Ananthapura District” has been registered under the
Societies Registration Act on 21.05.2007 vide No. 339 of
2007.
48. The attested copy of the Memorandum of
Association of Sree Sarada Educational Rural
Development and Animal Welfare Society marked under
Ex.P-1, 2 and 4 reveals that Sri. S. Sheshadri Reddy S/o
Sri. Rajashekar Reddy was the President of the said
society. Further, the attested copy of the resolution
passed in the year 2010 marked under in Ex.P.1, 2 and
4 the Executive Committee has accepted the resignation
of the President Sri. S. Sheshadri Reddy and elected Sri.
P. Ramakrishna Reddy as new president. Further, the
Resolution dated 20.09.2010 reveals that the resignation
filed by the Secretary Smt. M. Sarada was accepted and
elected Sri. S. Sheshadri Reddy as Secretary.
49. The Ex.P.1, 2 and 4 were marked through
P.W.1 Smt. Uma Prassanna Kumar who identified these
documents as accused No.1 society has submitted these
32 C.C.No.17622/2017
documents while applying for recognition of D.El.Ed.,
and B.Ed., courses. The Ld. Counsel for the accused
No.1 and 2 has suggested to the P.W.1 during the cross-
examination that the P.W.2 and CBI officials in order to
falsely implicate the accused No.1 and 2, they got
created Ex.P.1 to 5 through her and she denied the said
suggestion as false. Hence, according to accused No.1
and 2, these documents are created documents.
50. P.W.16 Sri. T.G. Reddy is the Senior Assistant
Officer in District Registrar, Registration and Stamps
Department, Ananthapura who deposed before the Court
that he handed over the documents pertaining to
accused No.1 society to the CBI as per Ex.P.56 and 57.
Further, he deposed that Sri. Sheshadri Reddy has
submitted the application along with declaration,
memorandum of association, certificate of registration
and connected documents under Ex.P.57 to the District
Registrar and as per their records, the accused No.1
society had registered in their office as per Society
Registration Act and initially it was represented by Sri.
Sheshadri Reddy and subsequently he was replaced by
Ramakrishna Reddy the President of Sree Sarada
Education Society. He further states that they have
issued the registration certificate 17.06.2015 in the
name of Sarada Education Society. In his cross-
examination, the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2
33 C.C.No.17622/2017
has not denied the averments made in his chief
examination.
51. Ex.P-56 is the original letter dated 04.10.2016
written by the District Registrar/Registrar of the
Societies, Anantapuramu with respect to production of
registered documents of the accused No. 1 Society. Ex.P-
57 is the attested copies of the letter dated 21.05.2007
issued by the accused No. 2 to the District
Registrar(Societies), Anantapur wherein he requested for
registration of the Society by producing Memorandum of
Association, copy of the Rules and Regulations of the
Association and attested copy of the Declaration,
Certificate, Memorandum of Association, Present
Executive Committee, Rules & Regulations, Certificate of
Registration under the Societies Registration Act,
Corresponding letters, Amendment of Bye-laws, Audit
Report etc., Ex.P-56(a) is the signature of the District
Registrar Sri. D.M Devaraju which was identified by the
PW-16.
52. Though the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1
and 2 contended that Ex.P.1, 2 and 4 documents are
created documents, but as per oral evidence of P.W.16
and Ex.P.57 documents which clearly shows that the
accused No.1 society was registered with the District
Registrar of Assurances, Ananthapur, under the
Societies Registration Act vide No.35/2001 on
34 C.C.No.17622/2017
21.05.2007. It is pertinent to note that the accused No.2
himself attested these documents with seal of the
accused No.1 society and submitted to NCTE. Hence,
there is no substance in the contention of the Ld.
Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2.
53. In view of the above oral and documentary
evidence, the prosecution has proved that Sree Sarada
Education, Rural Development and Animal Welfare
Society i.e. accused No.1 society was registered on
21.05.2007 vide No. 339 of 2007 with the District
Registrar of Assurances, Ananthapur, under the
Societies Registration Act and on 20.09.2010, Sri S.
Seshadri Reddy i.e. accused No.2 became the secretary
of accused No.1 society.
54. As per prosecution case, the accused No.2 has
been running a school named Sri. Sarada Vidyaniketan
English Medium School at Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu
Village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapur District,
Andhra Pradesh for classes 1 to 7 from the academic
year 2010-11.
55. Further the attested copy of the proceedings of
the District Educational Officer, Anantapuram dated
27.11.2010 marked under Ex.P-1 2 and 4 reveals that
permission for provisional recognition for 5 years for the
academic years from 2010-11 to 2014-15 for class I to
35 C.C.No.17622/2017
VII issued to Sri Sarada Vidyanikethan English Medium
School, Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal subject to
condition.
56. Ex.P-5(q) is the attested copy of the
proceedings of the District Educational Officer,
Anantapur dated 27.11.2010. It reveals that provisional
recognition for period of 5 years for the academic years
from 2010-11 to 2014-15 for the classes 1 to 7th English
medium given to Sri. Sarada Vidyanikethan English
Medium School, Akuledu village.
57. Ex.P-95 is the original letter of Mandal
Educational Officer to the District Educational Officer
and copy of the nominal roll of students and Blue Print
of the building plan prepared by the PW-3 in respect to
proposed construction of school building in Sy. No.
243/3 of Akuledu village to run Sree Sarada
Vidyanikethan School. According to PW-35 Investigating
Officer, these documents were seized during the course
of searches conducted in the institution of accused No. 1
society on 05.07.2016.
58. Ex.P-99 is the original teachers attendance
register of Sree Sarada Vidyanikethana School of
Akuledu village, According to PW-35 Investigating
Officer, this register was seized during the course of
36 C.C.No.17622/2017
searches conducted in the Institution of accused No. 1
on 05.07.2016.
59. P.W.19 Sri. P. Chandrayudu, Retired Mandal
Education Officer, Ananthapur District deposed in his
evidence that Ex.P.5(q) is the copy of the proceedings of
the District Education Officer dated 27.11.2010 issued
by the District Education Officer and as per the said
proceedings, provisional recognition was given to the
school namely Sree Sarada Vidyanikethan English
Medium School, Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal,
Ananthapur district for classes from I to VII for the year
from 2010-11. The Ld. Counsels for accused No.1 to 3
have not cross examined the P.W.19.
60. In view of the above oral and documentary
evidence, the prosecution has proved that the accused
No.2 has been running a school named Sri. Sarada
Vidyaniketan English Medium School at Sy.No.241/2,
Akuledu Village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapur
District, Andhra Pradesh for classes 1 to 7 from the
academic year 2010-11.
61. As per the prosecution case, on 27.02.2015
the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE)
issued a public notice inviting applications for starting
new education colleges/increase in intake of students.
37 C.C.No.17622/2017
62. Ex.P-108 is the certified copies of the Public
Notices dated 27.02.2015 and 30.05.2015 issued by the
Member Secretary, NCTE. As per the Public Notice
dated 27.02.2015, NCTE invites applications for
recognition of Teachers Training Program for the
Academic Session 2016-17 and the applications in the
prescribed form should be submitted on-line to the
concerned regional committee along with fee and
requisite documents as prescribed in NCTE Regulation
2014, from 01.03.2015 to 31.05.2015 only. As per public
notice dated 30.05.2015, the time was extended for
submission of on-line application up to 30.06.2015.
63. P.W.2 Smt. Revathy Reddy, the then Regional
Director, NCTE, Bengaluru deposed in her evidence that
NCTE, Bengaluru is an authority to give recognition for
starting teacher education institutions and every year
NCTE head quarters invites applications for recognition
of teachers educational institutions in the months of
March to May.
64. In view of Ex.P-108 the certified copies of the
Public Notice dated 27.02.2015, NCTE invites
applications for recognition of Teachers Training
Program for the Academic Session 2016-17 and as per
public notice dated 30.05.2015, the time was extended
for submission of on-line application up to 30.06.2015.
38 C.C.No.17622/2017
65. In view of the above oral and documentary
evidence, the prosecution has proved that on 27.02.2015
the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE)
issued a public notice inviting applications for starting
new education colleges/increase in intake of students.
66. As per prosecution case, the NCTE
Regulations, 2014 under which the applications were
processed, specified the norms and standards for
infrastructural facilities and as per Clause 6.1 (ii) of
Appendix-4, the built up area and the land area required
for running D.El.Ed. Plus B.Ed. Course is 3,000 square
meter and the required documents has to be submitted
for grant of formal recognition as per NCTE Regulations
2014.
67. Ex.P-6 is the certified copy of the Gazette
Notification dated 28.11.2014 with respect to National
Council for Teachers Education (Recognition Norms and
Procedures) Regulations 2014. Rule 9 of the said
Regulations reveals that, the Norms and Standards for
Elementary Teachers Education Program leading to
Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed) is mentioned
in Appendix-2 and the Bachelor of Education Program
leading to Bachelor of Education(B.Ed) Degree
mentioned in Appendix-4.
39 C.C.No.17622/2017
68. As per Appendix-2 in Ex.P-6 Gazette
Notification at Sl.No. 6 Facilities mentioned, wherein
Sl.No. 6.1 speaks about Infrastructure and as per Sl.No.
6.1(a) the land and built up area for running D.El.Ed
program in combination with other Teacher Education
Program shall be as under:
69. Further, as per Sl.No. 6.1(b) of Appendix-2 in
Ex.P-6, it is mentioned that the Institution must have
the Infrastructure of one class room for every 50
students, multipurpose hall with capacity of 200 with
dais with total area of 2000 square feet, library cum
resource center, curriculum laboratory, computer lab
etc.,
70. As per Appendix-4 in Ex.P-6 Gazette
Notification at column No. 6 Facilities mentioned,
wherein Sl.No.6.1 speaks about Infrastructure and as
per Sl.No.6.1(ii) the land and built up area for running
other Teacher Education Program in combination with
B.Ed program shall be as under:
Course(s) Built Up Area (in Land Area (in
sqm) sqm)
B.Ed/Education 1500 2500
Component of B.A,
B.Ed/B.Sc.B.Ed
D.E.C.Ed plus B.Ed 2500 3000
D.El.Ed plus B.Ed 3000 3000
B.Ed plus M.Ed 2000 3000
D.E.C.Ed plus B.Ed 3000 3500
40 C.C.No.17622/2017plus M.Ed
D.El.Ed plus B.Ed plus 3500 3500
M.Ed
D.El.Ed plus D.E.C.Ed 4000 4000
plus B.Ed plus M.Ed
71. Further, as per Sl.No.6.1(ii) of Appendix-4 in
Ex.P-6, it is mentioned that the Institution must have
the Infrastructure of one class room for every 50
students, multipurpose hall with capacity of 200 with
dais with total area of 2000 square feet, library cum
resource center, curriculum laboratory, ICT resource
center etc., Further in the said Notification, the faculty,
staff structure also mentioned.
72. According to the Ex.P-6 NCTE Regulations,
2014, the land and built up area to run D.El.Ed., plus
B.Ed. Program is 3000 square meters.
73. P.W.1 Smt. Uma Prasanna Kumar deposed in
her evidence that as per 2014 Regulations, in order to
obtain sanction, the institution must have land area for
the course of Diploma in Elementary Education is 2500
square meter out of which built up area must be 1500
square meter and the same norms is applicable to B.Ed.,
course also and in case D.El.Ed., and B.Ed., course are
taken in composite, then the institution must have 3000
square meter of area and the same area i.e. 3000 square
meter built up area.
41 C.C.No.17622/2017
74. P.W.2 Smt. Revathi Reddy the then Regional
Director, NCTE, Bengaluru deposed in her evidence that
in order to start composite college for 2 programs,
prescribed land space is 2500 square meter each
program and 500 square meter for 2nd program and
totally for composite college, there should be 3000
square meter space.
75. In view of the oral and documentary evidence,
the land and built-up area required for running the
D.El.Ed. + B.Ed. Course is 3000 square meter and
required documents has to be submitted for grant for
formal recognition as per NCTE Regulations, 2014.
76. As per the prosecution case, accused No.1
represented by accused No.2 and 3 entered into a
criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of conspiracy,
schemed to get formal recognition for running D.El.Ed.
and B.Ed. Courses in the name of Sree Sarada
Education (D.El.Ed. and B.Ed.) College, Akuledu,
Ananthapur District under the aegis of accused No.1
society with the available infrastructure of Sri. Sarada
Vidyaniketan School and without having the
infrastructure required for running the said composite
course as specified in the NCTE Regulations, 2014 and
in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, on 22.05.2015
accused No.2 and accused No.3 re-constituted the
Executive Committee of accused No.1 Society and elected
42 C.C.No.17622/2017
Smt. K. Lakshmi Devi who is wife of accused No.3 as the
treasurer of the accused No.1 Society.
77. In Ex.P.1, 2 and 4, the attested copies of the
resolution passed in the year 2010, the Executive
Committee has accepted the resignation of the President
Sri. S. Sheshadri Reddy and elected Sri. P. Ramakrishna
Reddy as new president. Further, the Resolution dated
20.09.2010 reveals that the resignation filed by the
Secretary Smt. M. Sarada was accepted and elected Sri.
S. Sheshadri Reddy as Secretary.
78. Further, the true copy of the resolution dated
20.09.2010 marked in Ex.P.56 which reveals that the
accused No.2 elected as secretary of accused No.1 society
unanimously. Further, the true copy of the resolution
dated 22.05.2015 in Ex.P.56 reveals that Smt.
Laksmidevi elected as Treasurer to the accused No.1
society. The Ex.P.56 true copies of the documents
marked through P.W.16. These documents obtained from
the concerned authority which reveals that the Executive
Committee of accused No.1 society has been
reconstituted on 22.05.2015 and Smt. K. Lakshmidevi
elected as treasurer of the accused No.1 society.
79. P.W.25 Smt. Kummari Lakshmidevi W/o Sri.
Obalpathy deposed in her evidence that accused No.3 is
her husband and she studied up to to 10th standard. She
43 C.C.No.17622/2017
further states that the Certificate of Registration issued
by District Registrar, Anananthapur in favour of Sree
Sarada Education Society and it consists copy of the
memorandum of association, members details and copy
of her Aadhar card and in the details of the members,
she was shown as treasurer of Sree Sarada Education
Society. Hence, the evidence of P.W.25 and Ex.P.1, 2, 4
and 56 clearly shows that P.W.25 who is the wife of
accused No.3 shown as treasurer of the accused No.1
society.
80. As per the prosecution case, the accused
persons in pursuance of conspiracy, also changed the
address of the accused No.1 society from Kandlapalli
village to Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu Village, Ananthapur
District.
81. The attested copy of the Acknowledgment of
Amendment of Society dated 17.06.2015 in Ex.P-1, 2
and 4 reveals that the Registrar, Ananthapur has
acknowledged the change of place of registered society
inside the district on the basis of the documents filed in
pursuance of section 9 and 10 of Societies Registration
Act in respect to society No. 339 of 2007. Further, the
attested copy of the documents under section 9 and 10
of Societies Registration Act reveals that Sree Sarada
Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare
Society has changed the address as Sy. No. 241/2,
44 C.C.No.17622/2017
Akuledu village and post, Anantapur, Singanamala,
Andhra Pradesh.
82. Further, the true copy of the resolution dated
22.05.2015 is marked in Ex.P.56 through P.W.16 which
reveals that resolution made to change the address of the
accused No.1 society from Kandalapalli village,
Koppalakonda Post, Pamadi Mandal, Ananthapura
District to Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal,
Ananthapura District. Further, true copy of the
certificate of registration dated 17.06.2015 also reveals
that the address of the accused No.1 society is at
Akuledu village, Singanamala, Ananthapura district.
Hence, these documents which were obtained from the
concerned authority clearly shows that address of the
accused No.1 society has been changed in the year 2015.
83. As per the prosecution case, on 26.05.2015
the accused person in pursuance of criminal conspiracy
got the property at Sy.No.241/2 Akuledu village,
transferred from the name of accused No.2 to the name
of accused No.1 Society.
84. The attested copy of the Gift Deed dated
26.05.2015 in Ex.P-1, 2 and 4 reveals that the accused
No. 2 gifted 1 acre of agriculture land in Sy. No. 241/2
situated at Akuledu village, Siniganamalu Mandal,
Anantapuramu, Andhra Pradesh to Sree Sarada
45 C.C.No.17622/2017
Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare
Society.
85. Ex.P-53 and 54 are the statement of
Encumbrance on property bearing Sy. No. 241/2 of
Akuledu village which reveals that Gift Settlement was
executed by the accused No. 2 in favour of accused No. 1
Society and the said document was registered and
executed on 26.05.2015. Ex.P-55 is the certified copy of
the Gift Deed executed by the accused No. 2 in favour of
accused No. 1 Society on 26.05.2015 and gifted the land
bearing Sy. No. 241/2 measuring 01 acre situated at
Akuledu village.
86. P.W.15 – Sri. M. Jameel Ahmad
Superintendent, office of the DIG, Stamps,
Ananathapura deposed in his evidence that he handed
over the Ex.P.52 to 55 documents to the CBI. He further
states that as per Ex.P.55 gift deed dated 26.05.2015
with respect to land measuring 1 acre in Sy.NO.241/2 of
Akuledu village, it was executed by the accused No.2 in
favour of accused No.1 society and the said property
transferred in the name of accused No.1 society as per
gift deed document No.614/2015. Though, P.W.15 cross
examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2,
but not disputed the execution of Ex.P.55 document by
accused No.2.
46 C.C.No.17622/2017
87. Ex.P-51 is the letter dated 06.10.2016 written
by the PW-15 Sri. M. Jameel Ahmed for forwarding of
the documents i.e copies of applications for issue of E.C
and Encumbrance Receipt and Ex.P-51(a) is the
signature of PW-15. Ex.P-52 is the applications for
issuance of Encumbrance Certificate and receipt. It
reveals that the accused No. 2 filed the applications for
issuance of Encumbrance Certificate in respect to land
bearing Sy. No. 241/2 measuring 01 acre of Akuledu
village and he has paid the amount of Rs. 225/- on
01.02.2016. The Ex.P-52 was marked subject to
objection. But, for what purpose the objection has been
raised is not stated in the evidence. Ex.P-52 documents
are the copies and these three documents produced by
PW-15 with his signatures and office seal.
88. In view of the above oral and documentary
evidence, it is proved that Executive Committee of
accused No.1 society was reconstituted on 22.05.2015
and elected Smt. K. Lakshmidevi who is the wife of
accused No.3 as treasurer of the accused No.1 society
and the address of the accused No.1 society changed
from Kandalapalli village, Koppalakonda Post, Pamadi
Mandal, Ananthapura District to Akuledu village,
Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapura District by passing
resolution dated 22.05.2015 and accused No.2
transferred the 1 acre of land in Sy.No.241/2 from his
47 C.C.No.17622/2017
name to the name of the accused No.1 society through
gift deed dated 26.05.2015.
89. As per the prosecution case, in pursuance of
criminal conspiracy, accused No.2 and 3 obtained NOC
dated 25.05.2015 from State Council for Educational
Research and Training (SCERT), Hyderabad for D.El.Ed.
Course and NOC dated 29.05.2015 from Sri.
Krishnadevaraya University, Ananthapur District for
B.Ed. Course.
90. The attested copy of the proceedings of the
Director, State Council of Educational Research and
Training, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad dated 25.05.2015
marked in Ex.P-1 and 2 and original proceedings marked
in Ex.P-3 at sheet No. 7 reveals that the School
Educational Department has no objection to permit the
Sree Sarada D.Ed college Akuledu village, Singanamala
Mandal to start Diploma in Elementary Education course
from the year 2016-17 and further it is mentioned in the
said proceedings that it does not confirm any right and
any lapses regarding all requirements, both
infrastructural and instructional facilities noticed in
future at the time of periodical inspections, the no
objection stands to be canceled.
91. Ex.P-63 is the original letter dated 27.10.2016
written by the Director of SCERT, Andhra Pradesh for
48 C.C.No.17622/2017
submitting the attested copies of the documents and also
furnishing information sought by the Investigating
Officer. Ex.P-63(a) is the signature of the Director which
is identified by the PW-18. Ex.P-64 is the attested copy of
the check list dated 23.05.2015 for issue of NOC to
establish D.El.Ed course for the year 2016-17 for the
accused No. 1 Society. It reveals that, the Co-ordinator
has made remarks that the land is not in the name of
Society.
92. Ex.P-65 is the attested copy of the proceedings
of the Director, SCERT, Andhra Pradesh dated
25.05.2015. It reveals that tentative No Objection
Certificate issued to the Sri. Sarada D.Ed college to start
Diploma in Elementary Education course from the year
2016-17.
93. The above said Ex.P.63 to 65 documents got
marked through P.W.18 Sri. K. Ananjaiah the then
District Education Officer, Ananthapura.
94. Ex.P-78 is the attested copy of the proceedings
of the Director, SCERT, Andhra Pradesh dated
25.02.2015 for issuance of NOC to start D.El.Ed course
by the Sri. Sarada D.Ed college, Akuledu village.
95. P.W.23 – Dr. K. Panduranga Swamy is the
then then District Education Officer who deposed that
49 C.C.No.17622/2017
tentative no objection certificate dated 25.05.2015 issued
by the Director, SCERT in faour of Sree Sarada D.Ed.
College Akuledu to start D.Ed. Course for the academic
year 2016-17 as per Ex.P.78. The Ld. Counsel for
accused No.1 to 3 have not cross examined P.W.23.
96. P.W.20 Sri. V. Premanandam the then
Regional Joint Director of School Education deposed
before the court that Sree Sarada Education society had
made an application to the SCERT requesting for grant of
affiliation for the D.Ed. Course in their college.
97. Ex.P-97 is the spiral binding booklet of Sree
Sarada D.El.Ed college containing the copies of the
correspondence to the Regional Director, SRCNCTE,
Bengaluru and copies of the on-line applications with
accused No. 1 Society documents, Receipt for D.D,
Undertaking, Gift Deed, NOC, Soundness Certificate,
Proceedings of Director, SCERT, Andhra Pradesh etc.,
According to PW-35 Investigating Officer, these
documents were seized during the course of searches
conducted in the Institution of accused No. 1 on
05.07.2016. In the copy of the letter, the original seal of
Office of the Regional Director, SRCNCTE was affixed
with number 150642 dated 18.06.2015 in respect to
receive of the application.
50 C.C.No.17622/2017
98. The above oral and documentary evidence
clearly reveals that the accused No.1 society made
application to the SCERT for grant of affiliation to start
D.El.Ed. course and on 25.05.2015 tentative NOC issued
to Sri. Sarada D.Ed. college to start Diploma in
Elementary Education course from the year 2016-17.
99. The original NOC dated 29.05.2015 marked in
Ex.P.5 and attested copy of the NOC dated 29.05.2015
marked in Ex.P-4 reveals that the Registrar of Sri
Krishnadevaraya University, Ananantapur issued No
Objection Certificate to start B.Ed two years course from
the academic year 2016-17 in accused No. 1 Society.
100. Ex.P-58 is the original letter dated 07.10.2016
written by the Registrar of Sri. Krishnadevaraya
University, Anantapur for furnishing of clarification that
the said University issued No Objection Certificate dated
29.05.2015 to Sri. Sarada College of Education, Akuledu
village, Singanamala Mandal to start B.Ed course and
the University granted temporary affiliation to the
Institution after duly compliance of the procedures. Ex.P-
59 is the No Objection Certificate dated 29.05.2015
issued by the Registrar, Sri. Krishnadevaraya University.
Ex.P-59(a) is the signature of the Registrar which was
identified by the PW-17. Ex.P-60 is the original
application dated 25.05.2015 for NOC for Sri. Sarada
51 C.C.No.17622/2017
B.Ed college, Akuledu village submitted by the accused
No. 2 to the Registrar of S.K University, Anantapuramu.
101. P.W.17 Sri. Phaniswara Raju the then
principal of University College of Education, Sri
Krishnadevaraya University Ananthapura who deposed
that he was deputed to hand over the documents to the
CBI by the Registrar and he handed over the Ex.P.58 to
62 documents to CBI. Further, he states that as per
Ex.P.59 no objection certificate dated 29.05.2015 issued
by the Registrar of their University in favour of Sarada
Education Society. In his cross-examination, it is
suggested by the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2
that their University had given NOC for affiliation of
B.Ed. College and the same is admitted by the P.W.17 as
true. Further, he states that he has not verified inward
and outward register in order to confirmation that
whether Sree Sarada Education had applied for
affiliation or not. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P.60 is
the original application dated 25.05.2015 submitted by
the accused No.2 to the Registrar of the Sri.
Krishnadevarya University, Anananthapura for issuance
of NOC to start Sree Sarada B.Ed. College, Akuledu
village. On the basis of this application, the University
has given NOC as per Ex.P.59 document. Ex.P.59 and 60
are the original documents produced by the concerned
authority. When the original application is on record and
52 C.C.No.17622/2017
it was received by the University by making endorsement
and the same is clarified in Ex.P.58 original letter by the
Registrar, then verification of inward and outward
register is not necessary.
102. Ex.P-96 is the spiral binding booklet of Sree
Sarada B.Ed college containing the copies of the
correspondence to the Regional Director, SRCNCTE,
Bengaluru and copies of the on-line applications with
accused No. 1 Society documents, Receipt for D.D,
Undertaking, Gift Deed, NOC, Soundness Certificate,
Proceedings of DEO, Anantapur etc., According to PW-35
Investigating Officer, these documents were seized
during the course of searches conducted in the
Institution of accused No. 1 on 05.07.2016. In the copy
of the letter, the original seal of Office of the Regional
Director, SRCNCTE was affixed with number 150641
dated 18.06.2015 in respect to receive of the application.
103. Ex.P-98 is the spiral binding booklet of Sree
Sarada D.Ed college containing the copies check list,
Proceedings of the Director, SCERT, Andhra Pradesh,
Correspondence letters, staff profile, applications of the
Teaching Staff, Service certificate, Marks cards etc.,
According to PW-35 Investigating Officer, these
documents were seized during the course of searches
conducted in the Institution of accused No. 1 on
05.07.2016.
53 C.C.No.17622/2017
104. In view of the above oral and documentary
evidence, prosecution has proved that accused No.2
obtained NOC dated 25.05.2015 from State Council for
Educational Research and Training (SCERT), Hyderabad
for D.El.Ed. Course and NOC dated 29.05.2015 from Sri.
Krishnadevaraya University, Ananthapur District for
B.Ed. Course.
105. As per the prosecution case, during this
period, accused No.3 also approached Sri. B. Thirupalu,
Engineer and Proprietor, M/s Apex Constructions,
Ananthapur district and obtained a building plan in the
name of Sree Sarada Education D.El.Ed. and B.Ed.
College at Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu Village, Ananthapur
district showing ground floor plus three floors, whereas
the available buildings at this survey number had only
ground floor plus first floor.
106. The attested copies of the building plan which
were submitted along with applications marked in
Ex.P.1, 2 and 4. Further, the attested copy of the
building plan which was submitted to visiting team of
NCTE marked as Ex.P.5 (f). It reveals that the said
building plan prepared by Sri. B. Thirupal i.e PW-9(CW-
11).
107. Ex.P-5(d) is the copy of the building plan and
Ex.P-39 is the original building plan which was approved
54 C.C.No.17622/2017
by the Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayath,
Singanamala (Mdl.). It reveals that the said building
plan prepared by Sri. B. Thirupal i.e PW-9(CW-11).
Further, it contains the seal and signature of the
Panchayath Secretary, Akuledu village, Singanamala
(Mdl.) and also seal of the accused No. 1 Society and
signature of the accused No. 2.
108. P.W.9 Sri. Thirupal B., Consulting Civil
Engineer, proprietor of M/s Apex Constructions,
Ananathapura deposed in his evidence that he prepared
Ex.P.5 (d) and (f) building plans pertaining to Sree
Sarada B.Ed. College and it bears his signatures and
office seal and he prepared the said plan in his office
without visiting the spot at the instruction of accused
No.3. He further states that accused No.3 asked him to
prepare building plan for the purpose of obtaining
permission of B.Ed., and D.El.Ed., colleges. He further
states that as per his plan, the total corporate block A
comprising of ground plus 3 floors in 9.273 square feet
and total built up area in the building plan as per
Ex.P.5(f) is 27,536.93 square feet and as per Ex.P.5 (d),
the total built up area is 35,324.87 square feet. Further
he states that after receiving the notice from CBI, he
visited the site situated at Sy.No. 241/2 of Akuledu
village and noticed the existence of only one incomplete
building.
55 C.C.No.17622/2017
109. P.W.9 was subjected to cross-examination by
the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 to 3 wherein he
states that Municipal Corporation of Anananthapura
issued the license to him for authorizing him to issue
building plan, but he has not produced the said license
to the Court. It is pertinent to note that P.W.9 is the
author of the Ex.P.5(f) and Ex.P.39/Ex.P.5(d) building
plans who identified the said documents and his
signatures on the documents. Further, P.W.10 auto CAD
operator in M/s Apex constructions of the P.W.9 also
supported the case of the prosecution and deposed that
these building plans prepared by the P.W.9. Hence, there
are corroborating evidence to establish that these
building plans prepared by the P.W.9.
110. As per the prosecution case, the accused No.3
and 2 arranged funds and obtained demand drafts dated
29.05.2015 and 03.06.2015 respectively towards
processing fee for the D.El.Ed. and B.Ed. Courses
applications.
111. The attested copy of the Demand Draft bearing
No.027412 dated 29.05.2015 of ICICI bank marked in
Ex.P-1 and 2 reveals that demand draft of Rs.1,50,000/-
was taken in favour of Member Secretary, NCTE,
Bengaluru.
56 C.C.No.17622/2017
112. The attested copy of the Demand Draft bearing
No. 027413 dated 03.06.2015 of ICICI bank marked in
Ex.P-4 reveals that demand draft of Rs.1,50,000/- was
taken in favour of Member Secretary, NCTE, Bengaluru.
113. Further the attested copies of Demand Draft
application form dated 29.05.2015 marked in Ex.P-1, 2
and 4 reveals that Sri. S. Sheshadri Reddy (accused
No.2) who is the applicant issued the cheque No.340018
from the account No. 630901513635 for issuance of
demand draft for Rs.1,50,000/- and another Demand
Draft application form dated 03.06.2015 reveals that the
applicant by name Sri. S. Sheshadri Reddy (accused
No.2) issued the cheque No. 340019 from the same
account for issuance of demand draft for Rs. 1,50,000/-
favouring the Member Secretary, NCTE and paid cash of
Rs. 513/-. These documents clearly shows that the
accused No. 2 has taken the demand draft for Rs.
1,50,000/- each in favour of NCTE on 29.05.2015 and
03.06.2015. The accused No.2 himself self attested these
documents with seal of accused No.1 society.
114. As per prosecution case, in pursuance of
criminal conspiracy, the accused No.2 and 3 submitted
the online applications in the name of accused No.1
society for obtaining formal recognition for D.El.Ed., and
57 C.C.No.17622/2017
B.Ed. Courses on 29.05.2015 and 05.06.2015
respectively.
115. As per Ex.P.108 certified copy of the Public
Notice dated 27.02.2015, NCTE invites applications for
recognition of Teachers Training Programme for the
Academic Session 2016-17 and the applications in the
prescribed form should be submitted on-line to the
concerned regional committee along with fee and
requisite documents as prescribed in NCTE Regulation
2014. According to Ex.P.108, the application in the
prescribed form should be submitted online along with
fee and requisite documents to the concerned Regional
Committee.
116. Ex.P-1 and 2 are the two separate spiral
binding books titled as SRCAPP3400-1 and
SRCAPP3400-2 – Sree Sarada D.El.ED College, Akuledu
Village, Singanamala (Mandal), Ananthapuramu District,
containing the attested copies of the letter addressed to
the Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee
(NCTE), Nagarabhavi, Jnanabharathi Campus road,
Bengaluru and attested copy of the D.D bearing No.
027412 of ICICI bank, attested copies of the application
I.D No. SRCAPP3400, Affidavit, Undertaking, Gift Deed
dated 26.05.2015, Aadhar cards, Proceedings of the
District Educational Officer, Ananthapur dated
27.11.2010, Site plan, Statement of Encumbrance on
58 C.C.No.17622/2017
Property, Proceedings of the Director, State Council for
Educational Research and Training, Hyderabad dated
25.05.2015, Soundness Certificate dated 26.03.2015,
NOC, Sanitary Certificate, Certificate of Registration,
Memorandum of Association, Resolutions, List of
Executive Committee Members, Acknowledgment of
Amendment of Society. It is pertinent note that all these
documents are attested by the accused No. 2 with the
seal of Secretary, for Sri Sarada Educational Rural
Development and Animal Welfare Society.
117. The self attested copy of the letter submitted
by Sri. S. Sheshadri Reddy, Secretary of Sree Sarada
Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare
Society to the Regional Director, SRC, NCTE, Bengaluru
marked in Ex.P-1 and 2 reveals that he has submitted
the on-line application 4 sets-1 original and 3 xerox sets
for new D.El.Ed course basic units of 50+50 seats
recognition in the name and style of Sree Sarada
D.El.Ed college at Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal
along with original D.D No. 027412 dated 29.05.2015 for
Rs. 1,50,000/- with all necessary enclosures with
reference to SRCAPP3400 and NCTE public notice dated
25.02.2015. In this letter, it is stated that he is
enclosing the on-line application for grant of recognition,
processing paid receipt, original notarized affidavit,
original notarized undertaking, certified copies of land
59 C.C.No.17622/2017
documents, land conversion certificate, E.C, copy of the
building plan and proceedings approved by the
competent authority, copy of building completion
certificate by Government Engineer, Certificate of
Registration, Memorandum of Association and Bye-laws
of society, NOC, NAAC submission application, original
D.D for Rs. 1,50,000/-.
118. Further the self attested copy of the affidavit
submitted by the accused No. 2 to NCTE marked in
Ex.P-1 and 2 reveals that the accused No. 2 who is the
authorized signatory of the application made to Regional
Committee of NCTE, Bengalru seeking grant of
recognition for conducting a course in Sree Sarada
D.El.Ed college at Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal.
Further, it reveals that accused No. 2 mentioned the
total area of land as 1 acre and built up area is 2558.178
meters.
119. Further the self attested copy of the
undertaking submitted by the accused No. 2 to NCTE
marked in Ex.P-1 and 2 reveals that he gone through the
NCTE Act 1993 and NCTE regulations 2014 and fully
aware of all the conditions to be fulfilled for grant of
recognition and he shall be fully responsible for
submission of any wrong information and if the
information furnished in the application is wrong, action
60 C.C.No.17622/2017
may be initiated against him/ Sree Sarada Educational
Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society.
120. Ex.P-3 is the NCTE file titled as 2016-17
D.O.R 18.06.2015, D.El.Ed course SRCAPP3400 -Sree
Sarada D.El.Ed college, Flat No. 241/2, 2 nd street,
Akuledu village and Post, Singanamala Taluk, Anantapur
District, Sree Sarada Educational Rural Development
and Animal Welfare Society, containing original
undertaking submitted by the accused No. 2, original
declaration submitted by the accused No. 2, original
NOC issued by the Panchayath Secretary, Akuledu Gram
Panchayath, Singanamala (Mdl.), Original sanitary
certificate issued by Panchayath Secretary, Akuledu
Gram Panchayath, Singanamala (Mdl.), Original
Soundness Certificate dated 26.03.2015 issued by
Mandal Engineering Officer, M.P. Singanamala, original
affidavit of the accused No. 2, Proceedings of the Director
SCERT, copies of the on-line application, original letter
written by the accused No. 2 to Regional Director, SRC,
NCTE, cash receipt dated 07.07.2015, original letter
written by the accused No. 2 to Regional Director for
consideration of B.Ed and D.Ed application, Meetings of
SRC, copy of the Recommendation, original Receipt
Memo dated 21.07.2016, original office note, original
scrutiny of application, original visit schedule, copy of
the order of the NCTE dated 02.05.2016, meetings note,
61 C.C.No.17622/2017
original letter dated 02.05.2016 submitted by the
accused No. 2, original letter dated 07.03.2016 written
by accused No. 2, proceedings of the Director SCERT
dated 16.03.2016, Annexure-1, original affidavits
submitted by the accused No. 2 and other lecturers
separately, copies of the Resolution, Call letter, marks
cards etc.
121. The original letter written by the accused No. 2
who is the Secretary of Sree Sarada Educational Rural
Development and Animal Welfare Society to the Regional
Director, SRC, NCTE, Bengaluru marked in Ex.P-3 at
sheet No.18 reveals that he has submitted the on-line
application 4 sets-1 original and 3 xerox sets for new
D.El.Ed course basic units of 50+50 seats recognition in
the name and style of Sree Sarada D.El.Ed college at
Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal along with original
D.D No. 027412 dated 29.05.2015 for Rs. 1,50,000/-
with all necessary enclosures with reference to
SRCAPP3400 and NCTC public notice dated 25.02.2015.
In this letter, it is stated that he is enclosing the on-line
application for grant of recognition, processing paid
receipt, original notarized affidavit, original notarized
undertaking, certified copies of land documents, land
conversion certificate, E.C, copy of the building plan and
proceedings approved by the competent authority, copy
of building completion certificate by Government
62 C.C.No.17622/2017
Engineer, Certificate of Registration, Memorandum of
Association and Bye-laws of society, NOC, NAAC
submission application, original D.D for Rs. 1,50,000/-.
This letter was received by the office of Regional Director,
SRC on 18.06.2015 along with original cash receipt of
Rs. 1,50,000/- (at sheet No. 19 of Ex.P-3) and printed
copy of the on-line application (at sheet No. 8 to 17 of
Ex.P-3), NOC issued by the Director of SCERT,
Hyderabad, original affidavit of the accused No. 2
regarding built up area, original Soundness Certificate,
Sanitary certificate, NOC and original Declaration and
original Undertaking. These documents clearly shows
that, the accused No. 2 has written a letter with printed
copy of the on-line application submitted for recognition
of D.El.Ed course along with the affidavit, Declaration,
Soundness certificate, Sanitary certificate, NOC,
Undertaking.
122. The original affidavit in Ex.P-3 at sheet No. 4
reveals that the accused No. 2 filed the affidavit that 1
acre land is in the possession of accused No. 1 society
and built up area is 2558.178 meters.
123. The original Undertaking issued by the
accused No. 2 marked in Ex.P-3 at sheet No. 5 reveals
that, he is fully aware of the conditions to be fulfilled for
grant of recognition and he is responsible for submission
of wrong information.
63 C.C.No.17622/2017
124. The original note sheet in Ex.P-3 reveals that
SRC-NCTE, Bengaluru has received the on-line
application on 05.06.2015 for D.El.Ed course from Sree
Sarada D.El.Ed college which is run by the Sree Sarada
Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare
Society and hard copy of the application submitted by
hand on 18.06.2015 along with D.D bearing No. 027412
dated 29.05.2015 for Rs. 1,50,000/- along with the NOC
issued by the Director, SCERT, Hyderabad. Further it
reveals that the deficiency in the application and
documents noted that the application is not duly signed
by the applicant on all pages and the certified copy of the
land document is not submitted and put up for orders.
Further it reveals that the SRC in its meeting 291th
meeting held during 20th and 21st of August 2015 decided
to summarily reject the application as certified copy of
the land document is not submitted.
125. The copy of the decision of the 291st meeting of
SRC is marked in Ex.P-3 at sheet No. 21 to 25 which
reveals that the application was summarily rejected as
certified copy of the land document is not submitted.
126. Ex.P-4 is the spiral binding book titled as
SRCAPP3401-1 Sree Sarada B.Ed College, Akuledu
Village, Singanamala (Mandal), Ananthapuramu District,
containing the attested copies of the letter addressed to
64 C.C.No.17622/2017
the Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee
(NCTE), Nagarabhavi, Jnanabharathi Campus road,
Bengaluru and attested copy of the D.D bearing No.
027413 of ICICI bank, attested copies of the application
I.D No. SRCAPP3401, Affidavit, Undertaking, Gift Deed
dated 26.05.2015, Aadhar cards, Proceedings of the
District Educational Officer, Ananthapur dated
27.11.2010, Site plan, Statement of Encumbrance on
Property, NOC dated 29.05.2015 issued by the Registrar,
Sri Krishnadevara University, Anantapura to start B.Ed
two years course, Soundness Certificate dated
26.03.2015, NOC, Sanitary Certificate, Certificate of
Registration, Memorandum of Association, Resolutions,
List of Executive Committee Members, Acknowledgment
of Amendment of Society. It is pertinent note that all
these documents are attested by the accused No. 2 with
the seal of Secretary, for Sri Sarada Educational Rural
Development and Animal Welfare Society.
127. The self attested copy of the letter submitted
by Sri. S. Sheshadri Reddy, Secretary of Sree Sarada
Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare
Society to the Regional Director, SRC, NCTE, Bengaluru
in Ex.P-4 reveals that he has submitted the on-line
application 4 sets-1 original and 3 xerox sets for new
B.Ed course basic units of 100 seats recognition in the
name and style of Sree Sarada B.Ed college at Akuledu
65 C.C.No.17622/2017
village, Singanamala Mandal along with original D.D No.
027413 dated 03.06.2015 for Rs. 1,50,000/- with all
necessary enclosures with reference to SRCAPP3401 and
NCTE public notice dated 25.02.2015. In this letter, it is
stated that he is enclosing the on-line application for
grant of recognition, processing paid receipt, original
notarized affidavit, original notarized undertaking,
certified copies of land documents, land conversion
certificate, E.C, copy of the building plan and
proceedings approved by the competent authority, copy
of building completion certificate by Government
Engineer, Certificate of Registration, Memorandum of
Association and Bye-laws of society, NOC, NAAC
submission application, original D.D for Rs. 1,50,000/-.
128. Further the self attested copy of the affidavit
submitted by the accused No. 2 to NCTE marked in
Ex.P-4 reveals that the accused No. 2 who is the
authorized signatory of the application made to Regional
Committee of NCTE, Bengaluru seeking grant of
recognition for conducting a course in Sree Sarada B.Ed
college at Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal.
Further, it reveals that accused No. 2 mentioned the
total area of land as 1 acre and built up area is 2558.178
meters.
129. Further the self attested copy of the
undertaking submitted by the accused No. 2 to NCTE
66 C.C.No.17622/2017
marked in Ex.P-4 reveals that he gone through the NCTE
Act 1993 and NCTE regulations 2014 and fully aware of
all the conditions to be fulfilled for grant of recognition
and he shall be fully responsible for submission of any
wrong information and if the information furnished in
the application is wrong, action may be initiated against
him/ Sree Sarada Educational Rural Development and
Animal Welfare Society.
130. Ex.P-5 is the NCTE file titled as 2016-17
D.O.R 18.06.2015, B.Ed course SRCAPP3401 -Sree
Sarada B.Ed college, Flat No. 241/2, 2nd street, Akuledu
village and Post, Singanamala Taluk, Anantapur District,
Sree Sarada Educational Rural Development and Animal
Welfare Society, containing original undertaking
submitted by the accused No. 2, original declaration
submitted by the accused No. 2, original NOC issued by
the Panchayath Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayath,
Singanamala (Mdl.), Original sanitary certificate issued
by Panchayath Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayath,
Singanamala (Mdl.), Original Soundness Certificate dated
26.03.2015 issued by Mandal Engineering Officer, M.P.
Singanamala, original affidavit of the accused No. 2,
original NOC dated 29.05.2015 issued by Registrar, Sri
Krishnadevaraya University, Anantpur, copies of the on-
line application, original letter written by the accused No.
2 to Regional Director, SRC, NCTE, cash receipt dated
67 C.C.No.17622/2017
07.07.2015, original letter dated 02.12.2015 written by
the accused No. 2 to Regional Director for consideration
of B.Ed and D.Ed application, Meetings of SRC, original
questionnaires filled by the Institution along with the
declarations, original Visiting Team report on inspection
on Institution, Corresponding letters, original affidavits
of the accused No. 2 and original affidavits of Teaching
Staff, Original Staff profile, attested copy of the building
plan, original note sheet, original scrutiny of application,
original visit schedule, copy of the order of the NCTE
dated 02.05.2016 etc.
131. The original letter written by the accused No. 2
who is the Secretary of Sree Sarada Educational Rural
Development and Animal Welfare Society to the Regional
Director, SRC, NCTE, Bengaluru marked in Ex.P-5 at
sheet No. 75 reveals that he has submitted the on-line
application 4 sets-1 original and 3 xerox sets for new
B.Ed course basic units of 100 seats recognition in the
name and style of Sree Sarada B.Ed college at Akuledu
village, Singanamala Mandal along with original D.D No.
027412 dated 03.06.2015 for Rs. 1,50,000/- with all
necessary enclosures with reference to SRCAPP3401 and
NCTE public notice dated 25.02.2015. In this letter, it is
stated that he is enclosing the on-line application for
grant of recognition, processing paid receipt, original
notarized affidavit, original notarized undertaking,
68 C.C.No.17622/2017
certified copies of land documents, land conversion
certificate, E.C, copy of the building plan and
proceedings approved by the competent authority, copy
of building completion certificate by Government
Engineer, Certificate of Registration, Memorandum of
Association and Bye-laws of society, NOC, NAAC
submission application, original D.D for Rs. 1,50,000/-.
This letter was received by the office of Regional Director,
SRC on 18.06.2015 along with original cash receipt of
Rs. 1,50,000/- (at sheet No. 76 of Ex.P-5) and printed
copy of the on-line application (at sheet No. 8 to 17 of
Ex.P-5), original NOC issued by the Registrar of Sri
Krishnadevaraya University, Anantapur, Original
affidavit of the accused No. 2 regarding built up area,
Original Soundness Certificate, Sanitary certificate, NOC
and Original Declaration and original Undertaking.
These documents clearly shows that, the accused No. 2
has written a letter with printed copy of the on-line
application submitted for recognition of B.Ed course
along with the affidavit, Declaration, Soundness
certificate, Sanitary certificate, NOC, Undertaking.
132. The original affidavit marked in Ex.P-5 at
sheet No. 7 reveals that the accused No. 2 filed the
affidavit that 1 acre land is in the possession of accused
No. 1 society and built up area is 2558.178 meters.
69 C.C.No.17622/2017
133. The original Undertaking submitted by the
accused No. 2 marked in Ex.P-5 at sheet No. 6 reveals
that, he is fully aware of the conditions to be fulfilled for
grant of recognition and he is responsible for submission
of wrong information.
134. The original note sheet in Ex.P-5 reveals that
SRC-NCTE, Bengaluru has received the on-line
application on 05.06.2015 for B.Ed course from Sree
Sarada B.Ed college which is run by the Sree Sarada
Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare
Society and hard copy of the application submitted by
hand on 18.06.2015 along with D.D bearing No. 027413
dated 03.06.2015 for Rs. 1,50,000/- along with the NOC
issued by the Sri Krishnadevaraya University,
Anantapuram. Further it reveals that a copy of the
application of Sree Sarada B.Ed college was sent to the
Department of Higher Education, Government of Andhra
Pradesh seeking the recommendation in respect of the
Institution for offering B.Ed course.
135. P.W.1 Smt. Uma Prasanna Kumar the then
Stenographer,NCTE, Bengaluru deposed in her evidence
that she used to take dictation and making letter
correspondence as per instructions of her senior officer
and in addition to that she was entrusted to additional
work of looking after the regulatory matters pertaining
70 C.C.No.17622/2017
to 6 districts of earlier integrated Andhra Pradesh,
Karnataka, Andaman and Nicobar and also looking after
RTI cases, correspondences as in their office there were
shortage of staff. She further states that the accused
No.1 society has applied for D.El.Ed., course recognition
as per Ex.P.1 and 2. Ex.P.3 is the file maintained by her
in her office and in the first page she prepared the note
sheet which contains her signature as per Ex.P.3 (a) and
also contains the signature of P.W.2 Regional Director as
per Ex.P3 (b).
136. P.W.1 further deposed that in Ex.P.3 at page
NO.80 i.e. downloaded copy of application submitted by
the accused No.1 society on which P.W.2 made remarks
that ‘please put up’ and based on the said remark, she
prepared draft agenda and placed before the P.W.2
whereas P.W.2 placed the same before the committee for
summary rejection as accused No.1 society has not
submitted land records and accordingly committee
rejected summarily. Further she deposed that on
01.10.2015 the accused No.1 society requested for
reconsideration by stating that they have already
submitted land records in another B.Ed. Course
application and the said application is in page No.26 of
Ex.P.3. She further states that again she prepared draft
agenda and put up before Regional Director and the
Regional Director after verifying the land records
71 C.C.No.17622/2017
submitted in B.Ed. Course application, they placed the
records before the committee and the committee ordered
that land records are available, reopen the case file and
process.
137. P.W.1 further states that Ex.P.4 spiral binding
book pertaining to Sree Sarada B.Ed. College,
Anananthapura and it contains letter addressed to the
Regional Director, NCTE, by the accused No.1 society for
recognition of B.Ed. Course. She further states that
Ex.P.5 file containing some original and some xerox
copies pertaining to accused No.1 society has been
maintained by her in her office and she prepared the
note sheet in the said document which contains her
signature and signature of P.W.2.
138. P.W.1 was subjected to cross-examination by
the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 wherein it is
elicited that the documents should be scrutinized by
Upper Division Clerk. Further she states that
Stenographer is equivalent to Upper Division Clerk. She
further states that in their office they will not obtain the
signature of the person who physically submits the hard
copy of the application to the office. She further states
that she don’t know the person who submitted the
application as well as documents on behalf of accused
No.1 society. It is pertinent to note that in each paper of
the Ex.P.1, 2 and 4 documents, the accused No.2 himself
72 C.C.No.17622/2017
self attested the documents as a Secretary of the accused
No.1 society. It clearly shows that accused No.2 has
applied for recognition of D.El.Ed., and B.Ed. Courses by
submitting Ex.P.1, 2 and 4 documents. Further, the
cross-examination made in respect to work to be done by
the Lower Division Clerk and Upper Division Clerk and
Section officer. It is pertinent to note that P.W.1 who
written the note sheets in Ex.P.3 and 5 documents
identified her signatures and the note sheets and
specifically deposed about she was entrusted with
additional work of looking after the regulatory matter
pertaining to 6 Districts of earlier integrated Andhra
Padesh, Karnataka, Andaman and Nicobar due to
shortage of staff and also maintaining of Ex.P.3 and 5
files in their office and preparing note sheets in respect
to the applications submitted by the accused No.1
society. Further, P.W.2 in her evidence specifically states
about note sheets made by P.W.1. Hence, the evidence of
the P.W.1 is corroborated by the documentary evidence.
139. P.W.2 Smt. Revathy Reddy, the then Regional
Director, NCTE, Bengaluru deposed in her evidence
deposed that Ex.P.1and 2 submitted by the Sree Sarada
D.El.Ed. college and Ex.P.3 is the original file pertaining
to Sree Sarada Educational Institution pertaining to
D.Ed. Course maintained by their office. She Further
deposed that Ex.P.3 contains online application dated
73 C.C.No.17622/2017
05.06.2015 and hard copy thereof dated 18.06.2015 for
D.Ed. Course and initially Sree Sarada Educational
Institution had not complied necessary conditions and
they put up before the committee for preliminary
rejection and committee summarily rejected. She further
states that on 01.10.2015 accused No.1 institution gave
letter stating that they have submitted land documents
in another file pertaining to their college for B.Ed. Course
and the same letter placed before the committee and
committee passed order that land records are available
in B.Ed. Course file, so file pertaining to D.Ed. Course
may be reopened and accordingly they reopened and
sent letters to educational institution and another for
State Government.
140. P.W.2 was subjected to cross-examination by
the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 wherein she
states that she has not personally received the
applications of accused No.1 society. She denied that she
has not scrutinized the applications and documents
submitted by the accused No.1 society. Further she
states that in the year 2015-2016 P.W.1 was her
personal assistant cum stenographer. Though, P.W.2
admits in her cross-examination that unless, until an
office order is passed for entrusting the work, no official
can be looking after any official work as per rules, but
74 C.C.No.17622/2017
there is no elicitation made to show that P.W.1 not
prepared the note sheets in Ex.P.3 and 5 files.
141. The original letter addressed to Regional
Director, SRC NCTE Bengaluru by the accused No.2 on
behalf of accused No.1 society which was identified by
the P.W.1 is available in Ex.P.3 at Sheet No.26. It reveals
that the accused No.2 requested for consideration of
B.Ed. And D.Ed. applications that they applied online for
the course D.Ed., dated 05.06.2015 and submitted their
copy on 18.06.2015 along with necessary documents as
required under Regulation 2014 and they also applied for
another course B.Ed. SRCAPP3401 and surprisingly,
SRCAPP3400 application is rejected summarily and as
the records submitted online and hard copy all are in
order and processing fee, certified land documents and
submission in 15 days as per and within Regulation
2014. This letter is received by the office of the Regional
Director on 01.10.2015. Hence, this document also
reveals that the accused No.2 has submitted the online
applications and also submitted hard copies to the office
of the Regional Director, SRC NCTE, Bengaluru for
recognition of D.El.Ed. and B.Ed. Course under accused
No.1 society.
142. Further, original two cash receipts dated
07.07.2015 for Rs.1,50,000/- each issued by NCTE,
SRC, Bengaluru in favour of accused No.1 society is
75 C.C.No.17622/2017
available in Ex.P.3 and 5 files maintained by the SRC,
NCTE, Bengaluru. It reveals that Rs.1,50,000/- paid
through DD No.027412 dated 29.05.2015 in respect to
SRCAPP3400 D.El.Ed., course and Rs.1,50,000/- paid
through DD No.027413 dated 03.06.2015 in respect to
SRCAPP3401 B.Ed., course.
143. Further the attested copy of the bankers
cheque application form of SBI dated 22.05.2015 marked
in Ex.P-1 and 2 reveals that Rs. 20,000/- paid in favour
of Chairperson, Affiliation Committee, Hyderabad.
144. Further the attested copy of the bankers
cheque application form of SBI dated 22.05.2015 marked
in Ex.P-4 reveals that Rs. 20,000/- paid in favour of
Chairperson, Affiliation Committee, Hyderabad.
145. In view of the above oral and documentary
evidence, the prosecution has established that the
accused No.2 has submitted the online applications on
behalf of accused No.1 society to the Regional Director,
SRC, NCTE, Bengaluru for obtaining formal recognition
for D.El.Ed., and B.Ed. Courses on 29.05.2015 and
05.06.2015 respectively and he further submitted the
hard copy of the applications to the NCTE on
18.06.2015.
76 C.C.No.17622/2017
146. As per the prosecution case, the accused No.2
and 3 with dishonest and fraudulent intention and with
the intention to cheat the NCTE and to obtain the formal
recognition, furnished the details of the building in the
applications as having multipurpose hall, seminar room,
library, arts and crafts room etc. though such rooms
were not available.
147. The attested copies of the on-line application
marked in Ex.P-1 and 2 reveals that the application was
submitted on 06.05.2015 at 05.07.29 p.m by the
Secretary Sri. S. Sheshadri Reddy for recognition in the
name and style of Sree Sarada D.El.Ed college at
Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal, wherein the
details of infrastructural facilities available for proposed
program mentioned as built up area en-marked for the
said program is 2558.179 square meters (27536.93
square feet) and also mentioned that 6 class rooms, 1
multipurpose hall, 1 multipurpose room, 1
seminar/tutorial room, 1 library, 1 principal room, 1
administrative room, 1 store room, 1 sports store room, 1
girls common room, 1 boys common room, 1 Art and
crafts room, 1 music room, 1 SUPW room, 2 science
labs, 1 psychology room, 1 E.T/ICT lab, 1 works shop
room, 2 other rooms, 5 toilets for male, 5 toilets for
female, 2 rooms for any other facilities are available. It is
77 C.C.No.17622/2017
pertinent to note that, the length and breadth and carpet
area of these rooms mentioned in square meters.
148. The attested copies of the on-line application
marked in Ex.P-4 reveals that the application was
submitted on 06.05.2015 at 05.16.38 p.m by the
Secretary Sri. S. Sheshadri Reddy for recognition in the
name and style of Sree Sarada B.Ed college at Akuledu
village, Singanamala Mandal, wherein the details of
infrastructural facilities available for proposed program
mentioned as built up area en-marked for the said
program is 2558.178 square meters (27536.93 square
feet) and also mentioned that 6 class rooms, 1
multipurpose hall, 1 multipurpose room, 1
seminar/tutorial room, 1 library, 1 principal room, 1
administrative room, 1 store room, 1 sports store room, 1
girls common room, 1 boys common room, 1 Art and
crafts room, 1 music room, 1 SUPW room, 2 science
labs, 1 psychology lab, 1 E.T/ICT lab, 1 works shop
room, 2 other rooms, 5 toilets for male, 5 toilets for
female, 1 room for any other facilities are available. It is
pertinent to note that, the length and breadth and carpet
area of these rooms mentioned in square meters.
149. The above said online applications in Ex.P.1, 2
and 4 were self attested by the accused No.2 with the
seal of accused No.1 society. Further, the original letter
of the accused No.2 which was received by the office of
78 C.C.No.17622/2017
SRC-NCTE on 18.06.2015 marked in Ex.P.3 and 5 also
enclosed with the copy of the online applications wherein
also the above said specification of rooms and other
infrastructural facilities mentioned with measurement.
150. The above documents clearly reveals that the
accused No.2 to obtain the formal recognition, furnished
the details of the building in the applications as having
multipurpose hall, seminar room, library, arts and crafts
room etc.
151. As per the prosecution case, based on the
infrastructural and the instructional details furnished by
accused No.2 and 3 in the applications, the NCTE
processed the applications and deputed the visiting team
to conduct inspection of Sree Sarada Education D.El.Ed.
and B.Ed College and the visiting team conducted the
inspection of the college on 11.02.2016.
152. Further the original note sheet marked in
Ex.P-3 reveals that again SRC in its 293rd meeting held
during 29th to 31st October 2016 considered the request
the Institution for reconsideration of the decision of 291 st
meeting and decided that the land document is available,
reopen the case and process.
153. The copy of the decision taken in 293 rd
meeting of SRC is marked in Ex.P-3 at sheet No. 27 to 30
79 C.C.No.17622/2017
which reveals that the decision has taken to reopen the
case and process since land documents is available in
respect to SRCAPP3400.
154. P.W.1 in her evidence states that she made
observation in Ex.P.5 note sheet that Shri Sharada
Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare
Society has not submitted approved Building completion
certificate (BCC) and Land Utilization Certificate (LUC)
whereas, he only submitted Photocopy of encumbrance
certificate but, original not produced and he has not
submitted original blue print of the building plan and
NOC Certificate not submitted and he only submitted
photocopy of the same but, the same has not been
approved by competent authority and he has not
submitted original fixed deposit receipt (FDR). She
further states that mentioning the above defects she
prepared agenda and placed before Regional Director and
based on Regional Director remarks, the committee
passed an order dated 15/16-12-2015 that Shri Sharada
Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare
Society shall comply above said defects and also order to
cause composite inspection on both D.L.Ed., and B.Ed.,
courses as mentioned at page No.95 of Ex.P.5.
155. P.W.1 further states that Ex.P-5 in which
sheet No.95 contains that committee has opined that
visiting team had to obtain building completion
80 C.C.No.17622/2017
certificate, encumbrance certificate, blue print of
building plan, original fixed deposit receipt and related
land documents and building documents from Sharada
Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare
Society for obtaining permission to B.Ed., and DL.Ed.
and the committee also suggested the visiting team to
cause composite inspection regarding B.Ed., and DL.Ed.,
colleges.
156. P.W.2 in her evidence states that on
08.12.2015, they scrutinized the documents and
prepared the agenda with remarks stating that Building
Completion Certificate, Land Use Certificate and
Encumbrance Certificate were not produced and building
plan was not legible and approved and built up area for
two courses are inadequate that is to say they only
shown built up area 27,536.93 square feet. She further
states that in fact, for composite two programs built up
area should be 3,000 square meters and FD receipts
were not submitted and with these remarks, she put up
the file before committee, whereas committee has
ordered as shown in sheet No.48 & 49 of Ex.P-3. She
further states that committee ordered to visiting team to
cause spot inspection.
157. The original scrutiny of application for causing
inspection in respect to new recognitions 2016-17 at
sheet No. 255 and 256 is marked in Ex.P-3 which reveals
81 C.C.No.17622/2017
that the accused No. 2 who is the
correspondent/Secretary of the accused No. 1 society
has applied for B.Ed(SRCAPP3401) and D.El.Ed
(SRCAPP3400) courses under the accused No. 1 society
at Akuledu village by submitting D.D No. 027412 and
027413 for Rs. 1,50,000/- each and also submitted the
NOC issued by the Registrar, Sri. Krishnadevaraya
University and NOC issued by the Director SCERT and
also submitted photocopy of the land document and
photocopy of the building plan, affidavit. Further it is
noticed that in the said documents, the building plan is
not approved and building completion certificate and
fixed deposit not submitted. After scrutiny, remarks
made by the PW-1 PA/Steno as under:
i. Building completion certificate approved by the
Government Engineer is not submitted.
ii. LUC is not submitted.
iii.Photocopy of E.C is submitted. Original EC is not
submitted.
iv. The original Blue Print of the building plan is not
submitted.
v. Original FDR not submitted.
vi. Built up area is less for offering both B.Ed and
D.El.Ed courses, Photocopy of Building plan is
not approved by the competent authority.
158. Further, the original visit schedule at sheet
No. 257 in Ex.P-3 reveals that Sri. C. Jayaprakash
Murthy and Smt. C. Naseema are nominated as visiting
82 C.C.No.17622/2017
team members to visit the Sree Sarada D.El.Ed college as
per the decision of 296th meeting of SRC.
159. The copy of the decision taken in 296 th
meeting of SRC dated 15th and 16th December 2015 is
available in sheet No. 39 to 48 of Ex.P-3 which reveals
that remarks made in the said meeting in respect to
application I.D No. SRCAPP3400 that building plan not
legible and approved, BCC, EC, original FDRs not
submitted and built up area as per building plan is
individual for the two programs. Further in sheet No.
48, the SRC committee has passed the order in respect
to both application I.D No. SRCAPP3400 and
SRCAPP3401 that (1). Building completion certificate and
Encumbrance Certificate to be submitted, (2) Blue Print
of the building plan to be submitted, (3) Built up area
inadequate for two programs, (4) Original fixed deposit
receipts to be submitted, (5) Ask VT to obtain relevant
land and building documents, (6) Cause composite
inspection.
160. In Ex.P-3, the original note sheet of SRC-
NCTE at sheet No. 258 to 260 in Ex.P-3 which reveals
that the SRC in its 296th meeting held during 15th and
16th December 2015 has considered the matter,
documents submitted by the Institution for B.Ed and
D.El.Ed along with hard copy of the application and
decided that (1). Building completion certificate and
83 C.C.No.17622/2017
Encumbrance Certificate to be submitted, (2) Blue Print
of the building plan to be submitted, (3) Built up area
inadequate for two programs, (4) Original fixed deposit
receipts to be submitted, (5) Ask VT to obtain relevant
land and building documents, (6) Cause composite
inspection. Further it is mentioned that, a composite
inspection was conducted on 11.02.2016 and visiting
team report is received by this office on 15.02.2016 and
the land documents, land use certificate, building
completion certificate, Encumbrance Certificate are
submitted and photocopy of the building plan submitted,
fixed deposit receipt not submitted and further remarks
of visiting team on deficiencies are mentioned that (1).
Blue Print of the building plan to be submitted and
remarks made that the Institution photocopy of the
building plan is submitted and it is not approved by the
competent authority, (2). Built up area inadequate for
two programs and remarks made that BCC dated
25.08.2015 the built up area is 10304 is submitted and
draft agenda is prepared and put up for perusal and
further order. Further in this original proceedings, it is
mentioned that SRC in its 304th meeting held during 19th
and 20th February 2016 considered the visiting team
report and other relevant documents and decided that
‘Reply considered. The C.D received with the reply does
not show removal of the asbestos sheets, (1). Issue LOI
for D.El.Ed(1 Unit), (2). FDRs in joint account should be
84 C.C.No.17622/2017
furnished, (3). Only if these are given on or before
03.03.2016, can issue formal recognition with effect from
2016-17 academic year is possible. After getting proof of
removal of asbestos sheets duly certified by the engineer
approving the BCC’.
161. The original scrutiny of application for causing
inspection in respect to new recognitions 2016-17 at
sheet No. 343 and 344 is marked in Ex.P-5 which reveals
that the accused No. 2 who is the
correspondent/Secretary of the accused No. 1 society
has applied for B.Ed(SRCAPP3401) and D.El.Ed
(SRCAPP3400) courses under the accused No. 1 society
at Akuledu village by submitting D.D No. 027412 and
027413 for Rs. 1,50,000/- each and also submitted the
NOC issued by the Registrar, Sri. Krishnadevaraya
University and NOC issued by the Director SCERT and
also submitted photocopy of the land document and
photocopy of the building plan, affidavit. Further it is
noticed that in the said documents, the building
completion certificate and fixed deposit not submitted.
After scrutiny, remarks made by the PW-1 PA/Steno as
under:
(i) Building completion certificate approved by the
Government Engineer is not submitted.
(ii) LUC is not submitted.
(iii) Photocopy of E.C is submitted. Original EC is not
submitted.
85 C.C.No.17622/2017
(iv) The original Blue Print of the building plan is not
submitted.
(v) Original FDR not submitted.
(vi) Photocopy of the building plan is not approved by
the competent authority.
162. Further, remarks made in the above said
document that the building plan is not legible and not
approved, building completion certificate, E.C, original
FDRs are not submitted, built up area as per the
building plan is inadequate for the two programs.
163. Ex.P-9 is copy of the decision of 296th meeting
of SRC- NCTE held on 15th to 16th December 2015
wherein Serial No. 218 and 219 the decision taken in
respect to Sree Sarada D.El.Ed college and B.Ed college
respectively as under:
1. Building Completion Certificate and Encumbrance
Certificate to be submitted.
2. Blue print of the building plan to be submitted.
3. Built up area inadequate for 2 programmes.
4. Original fixed deposit receipts to be submitted.
5. Ask VT to obtain relevant land and building
documents.
6. Cause composite inspection.
164. Ex.P.9 marked subject to objection as it
contains copies. On perusal of the same, the decision of
296th meeting of SRC-NCTE typed and signed by the
chairman and members and it is a copy the decision of
SRC-NCTE.
86 C.C.No.17622/2017
165. Further, the original visit schedule at sheet
No. 345 marked in Ex.P-5 reveals that Sri. C.
Jayaprakash Murthy and Smt. C. Naseema are
nominated as visiting team members to visit the Sree
Sarada D.El.Ed college as per the decision of 296th
meeting of SRC.
166. The copy of the decision taken in 296th
meeting of SRC dated 15th and 16th December 2015 is
available in sheet No. 86 to 95 of Ex.P-5 which reveals
that remarks made in the said meeting in respect to
application I.D No. SRCAPP3401 that building plan not
legible and approved, BCC, EC, original FDRs not
submitted and built up area as per building plan is
individual for the two programs. Further in sheet No.
95, the SRC committee has passed the order in respect
to both application I.D No. SRCAPP3400 and
SRCAPP3401 that (1). Building completion certificate and
Encumbrance Certificate to be submitted, (2) Blue Print
of the building plan to be submitted, (3) Built up area
inadequate for two programs, (4) Original fixed deposit
receipts to be submitted, (5) Ask VT to obtain relevant
land and building documents, (6) Cause composite
inspection.
167. The original note sheet of SRC-NCTE at sheet
No. 346 and 347 marked in Ex.P-5 which reveals that
87 C.C.No.17622/2017
the SRC in its 296th meeting held during 15th and 16th
December 2015 has considered the matter, documents
submitted by the Institution for B.Ed and D.El.Ed along
with hard copy of the application and decided that (1).
Building completion certificate and Encumbrance
Certificate to be submitted, (2) Blue Print of the building
plan to be submitted, (3) Built up area inadequate for
two programs, (4) Original fixed deposit receipts to be
submitted, (5) Ask VT to obtain relevant land and
building documents, (6) Cause composite inspection.
Further it is mentioned that, a composite inspection was
conducted on 11.02.2016 and visiting team report is
received by this office on 15.02.2016 and the land
documents, land use certificate, building completion
certificate, Encumbrance Certificate are submitted and
photocopy of the building plan submitted, fixed deposit
receipt not submitted and further remarks of visiting
team on deficiencies are mentioned that (1). Blue Print of
the building plan to be submitted and remarks made
that the Institution photocopy of the building plan is
submitted and it is not approved by the competent
authority, (2). Built up area inadequate for two programs
and remarks made that BCC dated 25.08.2015 the built
up area is 10304 is submitted and draft agenda is
prepared and put up for perusal and further order.
Further in this original note sheet, it is mentioned that
SRC in its 304th meeting held during 19th and 20th
88 C.C.No.17622/2017
February 2016 considered the visiting team report and
other relevant documents and decided that ‘Reply
considered. The C.D received with the reply does not
show removal of the asbestos sheets, (1). Issue LOI for
B.Ed(1 Unit), (2). FDRs in joint account should be
furnished, (3). Only if these are given on or before
03.03.2016, can issue formal recognition with effect from
2016-17 academic year is possible. After getting proof of
removal of asbestos sheets duly certified by the engineer
approving the BCC’.
168. As per the above documents, the SRC in its
296th meeting has considered the applications and
documents submitted by the accused No.1 society and
decided that Building completion certificate and
Encumbrance Certificate to be submitted, Blue Print of
the building plan to be submitted, Built up area
inadequate for two programs, Original fixed deposit
receipts to be submitted, Ask VT to obtain relevant land
and building documents, Cause composite inspection.
Hence, the prosecution has proved that based on the
applications and documents furnished by the accused
No.2, the SRC processed the applications and deputed
the visiting team consisting of Sri. C. Jayaprakash
Murthy and Smt. C. Naseema to conduct inspection of
accused No.1 society.
89 C.C.No.17622/2017
169. As per the prosecution case, the visiting team
conducted the inspection of accused No.1 college on
11.02.2016 and in pursuance of criminal conspiracy the
accused No.2 and 3 and in order to cheat the NCTE
forged and created Land Conversion Proceedings dated
15.11.2015 and the Building Completion Certificate
dated 25.08.2015 and the accused No.2 and 3 have
submitted these documents to the visiting team.
170. The burden is on the prosecution to establish
that the accused No.2 and 3 have forged and created
Land Conversion Proceedings dated 15.11.2015 and the
Building Completion Certificate dated 25.08.2015 and
submitted to the visiting team. Firstly, the prosecution
has to prove that these documents have been submitted
by the accused No.2 and 3 to the visiting team and
secondly these documents were forged by the accused
No.2 and 3.
171. P.W.1 in her evidence states that the visiting
team i.e., Mr. C. Jayaprakash Murthy and Miss.
Naseema were proposed to visit and as per proposal, Mr.
C. Jayaprakash Murthy and K. Anandan instead of Miss.
Naseema visited B.Ed., and DL.Ed., colleges.
172. P.W.3 Sri. K. Anandan, Rtd., Professor in his
evidences states that he was also member of visiting
90 C.C.No.17622/2017
team of NCTE for Teacher’s Education Institution and as
a member of visiting team, the visiting team should visit
the institution to ascertain infrastructure, faculty and
facilities as specified under rules and regulations
prescribed by NCTE and after visiting any institution,
they used to submit report. He further states that in the
year 2016, he received phone call from NCTE regarding
the fact that he has been nominated as a one of the
visiting team members to conduct inspection in Shardha
Educational Institution in Ananthapura District, Andhra
Pradesh and also received e-mail to that effect. He
further states that after 2-3 days, he visited to Sharadha
Educational Institution in the month of February 2016
along with another visiting team member namely
Jayaprakash Murthy and they inspected the premises
regarding infrastructure and other facilities as prescribed
by NCTE along with the office bearers of Sharadha
Educational Society namely Sri. Obalapathy (accused
No.3) and other office bearers.
173. P.W.3 further states that during their visit,
they verified the documents pertaining to infrastructure
of Sharadha Institutional Society and also facilities and
whatever they found there, they recorded the same and
prepared report and they also made videographs and
taken photographs by the aid of office bearers of the
Sharadha Institutional Society. Further, P.W.3 identified
91 C.C.No.17622/2017
the visiting team report prepared by himself and
Jayaprakash Murthy as per Ex.P.5 (g).
174. P.W.3 in his evidence states that during the
time of their visit, the office bearers of Sharadha
Institutional Society namely Obalapathy (accused No.3)
and others had given building plan, property documents
and teaching aid materials like computers and other
peripherals and the documents submitted by office
bearers are attested by themselves and while preparing
report, they also gone through with said documents. He
further states that Ex.P-5(f) building plan was submitted
by office bearers of Sharadha Institutional Society at the
time of their visit.
175. P.W.3 further states that during their visit,
they also inspected labs and teaching rooms etc and at
that time, they satisfied regarding facilities for some
extent and they also orally gave suggestions to them,
whereas office bearers submitted that they are going to
construct further buildings means extension of buildings
for further courses like B.A., B.Ed., M.A., B.Sc., etc., and
thereafter, they prepared their visiting team report and
also annexed a CD to said report regarding videograph
done at the time of their inspection. He further states
that Ex.P.19 to 26 photographs taken at the time of
92 C.C.No.17622/2017
their visit and same were given to them and they adopted
the same in their report.
176. P.W.3 further states that according to their
report Ex.P-5(g), built up area was totally 7455 Square
feet and as per regulations, built up area should be
2000 and add square meters and the office bearers of
Sharadha Educational Society submitted that they are
going to complete uncompleted structures which are
already half built up for some extent. He further states
that during their visit, they also found two floor
constructed building, but according to building plan, it
should have been three floors and they also found on
the spot some temporary shed with asbestos roofing,
they advised them to remove the said shed, because the
office bearers informed them that shed has been using
for storing construction materials and others for
construction purpose. He further states that on
considering progress of construction of the building and
assurance given by the office bearers of Sharadha
Educational Society, they recommended.
177. P.W.1 in her evidence states that as per the
order passed by the committee Visiting Team Members
submitted their report which is at page No.152 to 160 in
Ex.P.5 and in the said report it is mentioned that built
up area for composite courses i.e., D.L.Ed. and B.Ed. is
only 7445 however, though in the report they have not
93 C.C.No.17622/2017
mentioned either Square Feet or square meters, but, it
can be deemed that i.e., 7,445 square feet because
prescribed built of the area should be 3,000 square
meter.
178. P.W.1 further deposed that the visiting team
submitted their report as reflected in sheet No.152 to
160 of Ex.P-5 and according to visiting team report, they
found built up area was only 7445 square feet, but
actual prescribed measurement was 3000 square meters.
She further states that on 15.02.2016, in sheet No.9 of
Ex.P-5, she prepared note sheet stating that above said
institution only submitted photo copy of building plan,
but same is not approved by competent authority.
Further, she states that she also noted that original fixed
deposit receipt has not been submitted by institution
and on the very same day, she also prepared meeting
agenda and placed before the committee, the same is
reflected in sheet No.161 & 162 of Ex.P-5.
179. P.W.1 further states that visiting team also
made remarks that Shri Sharada Educational Rural
Development and Animal Welfare Society has only
submitted photocopy of building plan which is not
approved by competent authority and in the building
completion certificate built up area is shown as only
10304 as reflected in at page No.346 in Ex.P.5. P.W.1
she states that the institution also submitted building
94 C.C.No.17622/2017
completion certificate dated 25.08.2015, wherein built
up area is shown as 10304 (without mentioning either in
feet of meters).
180. P.W.2 deposed in her evidence that the
visiting team after spot inspection submitted the report
to committee, whereas committee after scrutinizing the
visiting team report and documents, ordered for show
cause notice for compliance of further deficiencies.
181. As per original note sheet in Ex.P.3 and 5, the
visiting team has conducted the inspection of accused
No.1 Sree Sarada Educational institution on 11.02.2016
and visiting team report received by the office on
15.02.2016 and it is also mentioned that the land
documents, land use certificate, building completion
certificate, Encumbrance Certificate and photocopy of
the building plan are submitted along with visiting team
report, but fixed deposit receipt not submitted.
182. Further in Ex.P.3 and 5 note sheets, remarks
of visiting team on deficiencies are mentioned as under ;
Deficiencies Remarks
Blue Print of the building The Institution photocopy
plan to be submitted of the building plan is
submitted and it is not
approved by the competent
authority.
Built up area inadequate BCC dated 25.08.2015 the
95 C.C.No.17622/2017
for two programs built up area is 10304 is
submitted
183. According to Ex.P.3 and 5 note sheets, the
land documents, land use certificate, building
completion certificate, Encumbrance Certificate and
photocopy of the building plan are submitted to the
visiting team.
184. Ex.P-5(g) is the original Visiting Team report
on inspection of Institutions. It reveals that this report
submitted by the Visiting Team member i.e Sri. C.
Jayaprakash Murthy and Sri. K. Anandan(PW-3) in
respect to visiting of the Sree Sarada D.El.ED and B.Ed
College of Education, Akuledu village, Singanamala
Mandal, Anantapuram District and date of inspection
mentioned as 11.02.2016. Further, it is mentioned that
original approved building plan verified and Municipal
licensed surveyor approved the building plan and total
proposed area of construction is 27536.93 square feet
and further building completion certificate dated
26.08.2015 issued by the Mandal Engineering Officer
Sri. Y. Sreedhar, Assistant Engineer, Singanamala was
issued the said document and total built up area is 7445
square feet and area of multipurpose hall is 2234.50
square feet, RCC roofing in Sy. No. 241/2 of Akuledu
village. Further, the measurement of the class room,
Multipurpose hall, Library, ICT resource center etc., also
96 C.C.No.17622/2017
mentioned in square feet. Further, built up area for B.Ed
and D.El.Ed mentioned as 7445 square feet. The overall
assessment of the Institution is mentioned by the
Visiting Team Members with their signatures [Ex.P-5(h)
and (k)] as under:
‘The management has provided
sufficient space for required
classrooms, different labs,
multipurpose hall, staff room etc. It
has provided equipments in different
labs and sports and games room.
Sufficient number of books are
available in the library. It has
provided sanitary facility and five fire
extinguisher facility. All evidences
ensures their preparation to
accommodate the B.Ed and D.El.Ed
programs’.
185. Further, in Ex.P-5(g) Visiting Team Report,
separate undertakings given by the PW-3 Sri. K.
Anandan and Sri. Jayaprakash Murthy that, they have
actually visited the Institution and videograph has been
done in the Institution on 11.02.2016 at 04.30 p.m and
they signed the undertakings as per Ex.P-5(i) and Ex.P-
5(l) respectively. Further in the said document, both
visiting team members i.e., PW-3 and Sri. Jayaprakash
Murthy have made the comments that the total built up
area, multipurpose hall, furnitures, Labs/resources
rooms, seating capacity in the library are adequate and
further they made remarks with their signatures [Ex.P-
5(j) and (m)] as under:
97 C.C.No.17622/2017
“The Institution is located in rural area.
The Management has submitted building
completion certificate and blue print
certificate. The Management has provided
sufficient space for infrastructural facilities
to run both B.Ed and D.El.Ed programs”.
186. As per Ex.P.5 (g) visiting team report, the
management has submitted the building completion
certificate and blue print certificate.
187. Further, as per the evidence of P.W.3 visiting
team member also, the office bearers of the accused No.1
society namely accused No.3 and others had given
building plan, property documents which were attested
by the office bearers. Further, P.W.3 identified Ex.P.5 (f)
building plan submitted by the office bearers of the
accused No.1 society during his visit.
188. Ex.P-5(f) is the self attested copy of the
building plan. It reveals that the said building plan
prepared by Sri. B. Thirupal i.e PW-9(CW-11). Further,
it contains original seal of the accused No.1 Society and
signature of the accused No. 2.
189. P.W.3 was subjected to cross-examination by
the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 wherein he
specifically denied that office bearers of Sree Sarada
Educational society have not submitted any documents
at the time of his visit. Further, P.W.3 admitted that the
98 C.C.No.17622/2017
buildings were not completed at the time of his visit and
building completion certificate was not issued as the
buildings were not completed. It is pertinent to note that
though P.W.3 admitted in his cross-examination that
building completion certificate was not issued as the
buildings were not completed, but it is not elicited that
no building completion certificate submitted by the
accused No.1 society during his visit. According to the
Ex.P.5 (g) original visiting team report and also Ex.P.3
and 5 original note sheets, the management of accused
No.1 society has submitted building completion
certificate and blue print certificate.
190. Further, P.W.3 admitted the suggestions made
by the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 in his cross-
examination that he has shown the measurement less
than regularization in his report and he has not
measured the measurement of class room at the time of
his visit and he has submitted report to the Director after
completing the inspection. These suggestions shows that
the accused No.1 and 2 indirectly admitted the
inspection of the visiting team and submitting of report
after inspection.
191. P.W.3 was subjected to cross-examination by
the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.3 wherein he admits
that he has no documents to show that accused No.3
was the office bearer of accused No.1 society. He denied
99 C.C.No.17622/2017
that accused No.3 has not submitted any documents
before him. Though P.W.3 admitted that no documents
to show that accused No.3 was the office bearer of
accused No.1 society, but he clearly deposed about
presence of accused No.3 at the time of inspection and
submission of the documents. It clearly shows that the
presence of accused No.3 in the premises of accused
No.1 institution while inspection by the visiting team and
submission of the documents to the visiting team.
192. Ex.P-19 to 26 are the photographs taken at
the time of inspection of the visiting team appointed by
the SRC. These photographs are marked subject to
objection as the negative or original memory card are not
produced. These photographs are identified by the PW-3
as it was taken at the time of their visit to the accused
No. 1 Institution with the aid of office bearers of accused
No. society. In Ex.P-19, 23 to 25 photographs, the
accused No. 2 is found.
193. As per the evidence of P.W.3, they made
videograph and taken photograph by the aid of officer
bearers of accused No.1 society and Ex.P.19 to 26
photographs taken at the time of their visit and same
were given to them and they enclosed the same to their
report. According to the evidence of P.W.3, these
photographs taken by the aid of office bearers of the
accused No.1 society and these photographs given to
100 C.C.No.17622/2017
them and they enclosed the same to their report. If the
photographs were taken by the office bearers of accused
No.1 society and handed over the same to the visiting
team members, then the negatives or original memory
card can not be in the custody of the visiting team
members to produce the same before the Court since it is
in the custody of the office bearers of accused No.1
society. When the negatives and original memory card
are not in the possession of the P.W.3, then the question
of producing the same by the P.W.3 does not arise.
Admittedly the said photographs are secondary
evidence.
194. As per Section 65 (a) of the Indian Evidence
Act, secondary evidence may be given of the existence,
condition or contents of a document when the original is
shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the
person against whom the document is sought to be
proved or of any person out of reach, or not subject to,
the process of the Court or of any person legally bound
to produce it and when after the notice mentioned in
section 66, such person does not produce it and in case
(a), any secondary evidence of the contents of the
documents is admissible.
195. Instant case as discussed above, Ex.P.19 to 26
photographs taken by the office bearers of the accused
No.1 society and photographs handed over to the P.W.3,
101 C.C.No.17622/2017
then the primary evidence i.e. negative or original
memory card is appears to be in the possession and
power of the accused persons against whom these
photographs sought to be proved. Hence, the secondary
evidence of the contents of the document is admissible
as per Section 65 (a) of the Evidence Act. Hence, there is
no substance in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the
accused No.1 and 2.
196. In view of the above oral and documentary
evidence, the prosecution has established that the P.W.3
and Sri. Jayaprakash Murthy who are the visiting team
members of the NCTE, visited the accused No.1
institution on 11.02.2016 and inspected the institution
and submitted report as per Ex.P.5 (g) by stating built-
up area was totally 7455 square feet and during their
visit, the accused No.3 and other office bearers of
accused No.1 institution submitted the Ex.P.5 (f) self
attested copy of building plan, land documents, land use
certificate, building completion certificate dated
25.08.2015 and encumbrance certificate to the visiting
team members and they enclosed the same to their
report.
197. As per the remarks made in the original note
sheets marked in Ex.P.3 and 5, the institution has
submitted the photo copy of the building plan which is
not approved by the competent authority and according
102 C.C.No.17622/2017
to building completion certificate dated 25.08.2015 the
built-up area is 10304 which is inadequate for 2
programs. On perusal of the Ex.P.5 (f), it is the self
attested copy of building plan submitted by the accused
No.2 and the same is not approved by the competent
authority.
198. P.W.1 in her evidence states that on
15.02.2016, in sheet No.9 of Ex.P-5, she prepared note
sheet stating that above said institution only submitted
photo copy of building plan, but same is not approved by
competent authority and the institution also submitted
building completion certificate dated 25.08.2015,
wherein built up area is shown as 10304 without
mentioning either in feet of meters. Further, she states
that, she also noted that original fixed deposit receipt
has not been submitted by institution and on the very
same day, she prepared meeting agenda and placed
before the committee, the same is reflected in sheet
No.161 & 162 of Ex.P-5.
199. As per the prosecution case, based on the
documents namely the building plan and the building
completion certificate submitted by accused No.2 to the
visiting team, the Southern Regional Committee of the
NCTE in its meeting held on 15.02.2016 has decided that
show cause notice be issued to accused No.1 for the
reasons that the built up area was not adequate for two
103 C.C.No.17622/2017
programs, the building plan was not approved by the
competent authority and the CD video-graphed during
inspection showed asbestos roof building.
200. P.W.1 in her evidence states that later, they
web hosted the decision of the committee meeting in
their official website. P.W.2 in her evidence states that
the committee after scrutinizing the visiting team report
and documents, passed order for issuance of show cause
notice for compliance of further deficiencies.
201. Ex.P-10 and Ex.P-15 are the copies of the
decision of 303rd meeting of SRC-NCTE held on 15th
February 2016 wherein Serial No.27 the decision taken
in respect to Sree Sarada D.El.Ed and B.Ed college as
under:
1. Built up area is not adequate for 2 programs.
2. BP not approved by competent authority.
3. CD shows Asbestos roofing building.
4. Issue SCN accordingly.
202. Ex.P.10 and 15 are marked subject to
objection as they are copies of the decision of SRC-NCTE.
But, as per original note sheet marked in Ex.P.3 and 5,
draft agenda prepared that photocopy of the building
plan submitted by the institution is not approved by the
competent authority and built up area inadequate for 2
programs as per building completion certificate
104 C.C.No.17622/2017
submitted by the institution. Further, P.W.2 in her
evidence specifically deposed about the issuance of show
cause notice to the accused No.1 society for compliance
of deficiencies. Nothing has been elicited in her cross-
examination to disbelieve her version. Though Ex.P.10
and 15 are the copies of the decision of the 303 rd meeting
of SRC-NCTE, but P.W.2 categorically deposed about
issuance of show cause notice for compliance of
deficiencies. Further, as per Ex.P.5 (c) original letter
dated 17.02.2016 written by the accused No.2 to the
Regional Director for furnishing the documents i.e. built-
up area is adequate to running 2 programs and building
plan is approved by the Panchayath Secretary. It shows
that after issuance of show cause notice by the NCTE,
the accused No.2 submitted the documents for
compliance. Hence, considering the above evidence, it
can be concluded that the SRC-NCTE in its 303 rd
meeting dated 15.02.2016 decided to issue show cause
notice for compliance of deficiencies noted in Ex.P.3 and
5 note sheets.
203. As per the prosecution case, with the
fraudulent and dishonest intention of circumventing the
deficiencies pointed out by the SRC-NCTE and in
pursuance of criminal conspiracy, the accused No.2 and
3 submitted another forged building plan to the NCTE by
a letter dated 17.02.2016 and made the SRC, NCTE to
105 C.C.No.17622/2017
believe that the required built up area was available and
thereby fraudulently and dishonestly induced the SRC,
NCTE to issue the Letter of Intent dated 20.02.2016.
204. P.W.1 in her evidence states that on seeing the
decision of the committee which was web hosted, the
Sharadha Educational Rural Development and Animal
Welfare Society has submitted a report by stating that
they are submitting building plan approved by
Panchayath and stated that built up area is sufficient
and Asbestos Roofing, same is reflected in sheet No.165
of Ex.P-5 and in fact, above said institution had
submitted only photo copy bearing the seal and
signature of Grama Panchayath.
205. P.W.2 in her evidence states that in response
to their show cause notice, Sri Sharadha Educational
Society has given Ex.P.5(c) letter dated 17.02.2016 and
Ex.P.5(d) building plan and in the said letter, the society
stated that built up area is adequate, building plan is
approved by panchayath and asbestos roofing sheet is
removed.
206. Ex.P-5(c) is the original letter dated
17.02.2016 and it reveals that the accused No. 2 being a
Secretary of accused No. 1 Society has written a letter to
the Regional Director, NCTE, Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru
wherein he states that they are enclosing adequate proof
106 C.C.No.17622/2017
documents for the requirements (1). Built up area is
adequate for running and programs for B.Ed building ‘A’
block 17061.00 Sq. ft and for D.El.Ed ‘B’ block 18263.87
Sq.ft, (2). BP is approved by the concern authority which
Panchayath Secretary, (3). Asbestos roofing is removed.
Further, the enclosures mentioned as Blue Print(xerox),
Blue Print approved by the concerned authority and
original C.D.
207. Ex.P-5(d) is the copy of the blue print of
building plan which was approved by the Panchayat
Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayath, Singanamala
(Mdl.). It reveals that the said building plan prepared by
Sri. B. Thirupal i.e PW-9(CW-11). Further, it contains
the seal and signature of the Panchayath Secretary,
Akuledu village, Singanamala (Mdl.) and also seal of the
accused No. 1 Society and signature of the accused No.
2.
208. In view of the above oral and documentary
evidence, it clearly shows that the accused No.2 has
written a letter in Ex.P.5 (c) to the Regional Director of
NCTE and submitted the Ex.P.5 (d) blue print of building
plan approved by the Panchayath Secretary, Akuledu
village to show that built-up area is adequate for running
for two programs and building plan is approved by the
concerned authority.
107 C.C.No.17622/2017
209. As per the prosecution case, the NCTE issued
the letter of intent subject to the submission of proof of
removal of the asbestos sheets duly certified by the
engineer approving the building completion certificate
and submission of the fixed deposit receipts in the joint
name of the institution and the Regional Director, NCTE
towards the endowment fund and the reserve fund of
Rs.5.00 lakhs and Rs.7.00 lakhs respectively, per
progamme for a period of 5 years.
210. P.W.1 in her evidence states that on
19/20.02.2016, as per meeting No.304, the committee
decided to issue Letter Of Intent (LOI) to Sharadha
Educational Rural Development and Animal Welfare
Society to get permission to B.Ed., DL.Ed., colleges on
the conditions that institution should submit original
fixed deposit receipt in joint account should be furnish
on or before 03.03.2016 and also committee directed the
institution to remove asbestos roof sheets and also
submit building completion certificate approved by the
Engineer, same is reflected in sheet No.166 & 167 of
Ex.P-5 and the said Letter Of Intent is in sheet No.168 of
Ex.P-5 and the said Letter Of Intent is approved by their
Regional Director Smt. Revathi Reddy and the Letter Of
Intent permitting for the course of DL.Ed. is in sheet
No.223 & 224 of Ex.P-3 approved by above said Smt.
108 C.C.No.17622/2017
Revathi Reddy and the above said Letter Of Intent sent to
said institution.
211. P.W.2 She further states that later, they put
up the same documents before committee, whereas after
scrutinizing the documents, the committee has passed
an order to issue Letter Of Intent subject to condition
that proof of removal of asbestos sheet as reflected in
page No.166 & 167 of Ex.P-5 and accordingly, they
issued Letter Of Intent to Sri Sharadha Educational
Society as shown in page No.168 of Ex.P-5 and page
No.52 of Ex.P-3.
212. Ex.P-3(e) is the copy of the order dated
20.02.2016 of the Regional Director, NCTE for issuance
of Letter of Intent for grant of recognition/permission for
D.El.Ed course under clause 7(9) of NCTE Regulation
2014 to the accused No.1 institution.
213. Ex.P-5(e) is the copy of the order dated
20.02.2016 of the Regional Director, NCTE for issuance
of Letter of Intent for grant of recognition/permission for
B.Ed course under clause 7(9) of NCTE Regulation 2014
to the accused No.1 institution.
214. Ex.P-11 is copy of the decision of 304 th
meeting of SRC-NCTE held on 19 th and 20th February
109 C.C.No.17622/2017
2016 wherein Serial No. 69 the decision taken in respect
to Sree Sarada D.El.Ed and B.Ed college as under:
1. Reply considered. The CD received with the reply
does not show removal of the asbestos sheets.
1. Issue LOI for D.El.Ed (1 Unit).
2. FDRs in joint account should be furnished.
3. Only if these are given on or before 03.03.2016
can issue of formal recognition w.e.f 2016-17
academic year be possible.
After getting proof of removal of asbestos sheets
duly certified by the engineer approving the BCC.
215. Ex.P.11 copy of the decision of 304th meeting
of SRC-NCTE was marked to subject to objection as it is
a copy. Though Ex.P.11 is a copy of the decision of the
meeting, but in original note sheet marked in Ex.P.3 and
5 the above decision of the 304th meeting of SRC-NCTE is
extracted as committee decided to issue LOI for B.Ed.,
and D.El.Ed. subject to production of FDRs and removal
of asbestos sheets. Further, Ex.P.3 (e) and Ex.P.5 (e) also
reveals that Letter Of Intent for grant of recognition
issued by the P.W.2.
216. In view of the above oral and documentary
evidence, it shows that P.W.2 issued Ex.P.3 (e) and
Ex.P.5 (e) Letter of Intent for grant of recognition for
D.El.Ed., and B.Ed. Courses to the accused No.1
institution as per the decision of the 304 th meeting of
SRC-NCTE.
110 C.C.No.17622/2017
217. As per the prosecution case, accused No.2 and
3 pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, did not remove
the asbestos sheets from the building and did not
produce the FDRs towards the endowment fund and the
reserve fund, but falsely induced the NCTE and
fraudulently obtained the formal recognition orders for
the D.El.Ed. and the B.Ed courses, on the last date fixed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India i.e. 02.05.2016.
218. P.W.1 in her evidence states that the Letter Of
Intent permitting for the course of DL.Ed., is in sheet
No.223 & 224 of Ex.P-3 approved by Smt. Revathi Reddy
and the above said Letter Of Intent sent to said
institution and in Ex.P-3, at sheet No.241 is the letter
dated 17.03.2016 submitted by the Secretary of
institution and the same was a reply to the Letter of
Intent and the said letter dated 17.03.2016 reveals that
approved staff list was issued by Selection Committee,
SCERT, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and the said
document also contains selection list of staff and
affidavits of the said staffs. She further states that she
placed the above said documents before the committee
with a note that Service Certificate of Principal as well as
Lecturers were not furnished and original fixed deposit
receipts in joint account were also not furnished and
College website was not functioning as per sheet No.13 of
Ex.P-3.
111 C.C.No.17622/2017
219. Further, P.W.1 states that in Ex.P-5 at sheet
No.11, she made a note on 25.04.2016 that though
Institution received Letter of Intent, but staff list was not
uploaded in the website and affidavits of the staffs were
also not uploaded, fixed deposit receipts were not
furnished, whereas the institution has furnished service
certificate of the principal, who was having only
experience of one year and eight months, but as per
norms, experience for principal should be more than five
years and the said note made by her has been approved
by their Regional Director.
220. P.W.1 further states that the committee in
312th meeting held on 28/29.04.2016 has decided to
issue show cause notice to institution with respect to
B.Ed., course stating that in order to run B.Ed., course,
the institution was supposed to appoint Assistant
Professors for the subjects of Sociology and Philosophy
and also for the Fine Arts and committee also decided to
club the said B.Ed., file to DL.Ed., files of the institution.
221. P.W.2 further states that after submission of
staff requirement report by society, committee has
ordered to issue Formal Recognition after receiving FDR
and accordingly, after receiving FDRs, they issued
Formal Recognition. She further states that she is not
aware of the fact whether accused society had complied
with the conditions specified in Letter of Intent or not
112 C.C.No.17622/2017
before issuing formal recognition and Ex.P.3 and 5 files
do not reflect regarding receiving of FDRs for Rs.
7,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- each from accused
society. She further states that Ex.P-3 file contains letter
dated 17.03.2016 submitted by Secretary of accused
institution regarding approved staff list selected by
committee, appointed by SCERT, Hyderabad at page
No.241 and along with said letter, the society also
submitted appointment of faculty in the institution as
per document at sheet No.239 of Ex.P-3 and she put up
the same before committee.
222. P.W.2 further states that Ex.P-5 file at
sheet No.8 discloses that P.W.1 had made some note
sheet specifying the deficiencies that the society has
not uploaded staff list and affidavit has not uploaded
and FDRs are not submitted, hence she put up the
note sheet before the committee. P.W.2 further states
that the SRC-NCTE in its meeting No.312 decided to
issue notice to society to comply the deficiencies. She
further states that in response to their notice,
accused society given their reply and same was put
up before the committee as per sheet No.9 of Ex.P-5.
She further states that according to 2014 regulations,
for the post of Principal, his experience should be
minimum 8 years, whereas, the society has given
service certificate of one K. Prathap Reddy, Principal
113 C.C.No.17622/2017
and his experience was shown as 1 year 8 months
and the qualification of said Principal is mentioned as
M.A., in psychology, M.Ed., and P.H.D. She further
states that in Ex.P-5, at page No.297, the accused
society also submitted service certificate of above said
K. Prathap Reddy as he worked in St. Joseph College
as a Lecturer for the period from 01.02.2009 to
30.10.2015.
223. PW-2 in her evidence states that whenever
the committee makes any observation and instruct
her to issue show cause notices to the accused
society for compliance, she used to issue show cause
notices to the said society and when the society
submits any documents or reports in response to
their show cause notices, she used to put up the
same before committee and ultimately, the committee
on going through voluminous documents as shown in
Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-5 files, the committee has decided to
issue conditional letter of intent to the accused
society with a condition to comply the conditions
specified in the said letter of intent. She further states
that after issuance of letter of intent, the committee
also issued formal recognition as shown in page
No.340 of Ex.P-5 file and Ex.P-3 & Ex.P-5 files do not
reflect regarding receiving of FDRs for Rs.7,00,000/-
114 C.C.No.17622/2017
and Rs.5,00,000/- for each course from the accused
society.
224. PW-2 in her cross-examination admitted
that the committee has raised objection only with
regard to submission of FDRs at the time of issuance
of Provisional Recognition.
225. Further, the original note sheet at sheet
No. 261 marked in Ex.P-3 reveals that the decision
has taken in 312th meeting of SRC that (1). Assistant
Professor (Socio/Phil) and Assistant Professor (Fine
Arts) are required, (2). Issue SCN accordingly, (3) The
case is linked with case No. 3400 and this case No.
3400 is eligible for recognition, but it has to be kept
in abeyance for a final decision in the linked B.Ed
case No. 3401. Further, the Institution has submitted
written representation on 02.05.2016 for formal
recognition orders to run B.Ed with one Basic Unit
and draft agenda prepared and put up for perusal
and further order on 02.05.2016.
226. The original representation dated 02.05.2016
of accused No. 1 Society is marked in Ex.P-3 at sheet No.
247 wherein accused No. 2 requested to issue formal
recognition order to run B.Ed course by mentioning the
faculty members.
115 C.C.No.17622/2017
227. Further the original note sheet at sheet No.
262 marked in Ex.P-3 reveals that the decision has
taken to issue formal recognition in SRC 313rd meeting
held on 2nd and 3rd May 2016. Subsequently, a formal
recognition order was issued.
228. The copy of the order of the Regional Director
dated 02.05.2016 is marked in Ex.P-3 at sheet No. 215
which reveals that NCTE grant recognition to Sree
Sarada D.El.Ed college for conducting D.El.Ed programs
for two years with one unit of 50 students from the
academic session 2016-17 subject to conditions for
deposit of Endowment Fund of Rs. 5,00,000/- and
Reserve Fund of Rs. 7,00,000/- and comply with the
various other norms and standards prescribed in NCTE
regulation etc.
229. The original letter dated 17.03.2016 written
by the accused No. 2 to the Regional Director, SRC-
NCTE, Bengaluru is marked in Ex.P-3 at sheet No. 241
that he is submitting the Annexure-1, 2 and approved
staff list selected by the Selection Committee appointed
by SCERT AP. Further in original Annexure-1, approved
staff list is mentioned. Further the original affidavits of
accused No. 2 are produced that the accused No. 1
Society has appointed required number of Teaching and
116 C.C.No.17622/2017
Non-Teaching staff etc. Further the original affidavits of
Teaching Staff also produced.
230. Further, the original note sheet at sheet No.
348 marked in Ex.P-5 reveals that the decision has
taken in 312th meeting of SRC that (1). Assistant
Professor (Socio/Phil) and Assistant Professor (Fine Arts)
are required, (2). Issue SCN accordingly, (3) The case is
linked with case No. 3400 and this case No. 3400 is
eligible for recognition, but it has to be kept in abeyance
for a final decision in the linked B.Ed case No. 3401.
Further, the Institution has submitted written
representation on 02.05.2016 for formal recognition
orders to run B.Ed with one Basic Unit and draft agenda
prepared and put up for perusal and further order on
02.05.2016.
231. Further the original note sheet at sheet No.
350 marked in Ex.P-5 reveals that the decision has
taken to issue formal recognition in SRC 313rd meeting
held on 2nd and 3rd May 2016. Subsequently, a formal
recognition order was issued.
232. The copy of the order of the Regional Director
dated 02.05.2016 is marked in Ex.P-5 at sheet No. 340
which reveals that NCTE grant recognition to Sree
Sarada B.Ed college for conducting B.Ed programs for
two years with one unit of 50 students from the
117 C.C.No.17622/2017
academic session 2016-17 subject to conditions for
deposit of Endowment Fund of Rs. 5,00,000/- and
reserve fund of Rs. 7,00,000/- and comply with the
various other norms and standards prescribed in NCTE
regulation etc.
233. The original letter dated 20.04.2016 written
by the accused No. 2 to the Regional Director, SRCNCTE,
Bengaluru is marked in Ex.P-5 at sheet No. 329 that he
is submitting the Annexure-I, II and approved staff list
selected by the Selection Committee appointed by S.K
University, Anantapuram. Further in original Annexure-
I, approved staff list is mentioned. Further the original
affidavit of accused No. 2 is produced that the accused
No. 1 Society has appointed required number of
Teaching and Non-Teaching staff etc. Further the original
affidavits of Teaching Staff and original staff profile with
letter dated 18.04.2016 of the Registrar, Sri
Krishnadevaraya University, Anantapuram also
produced.
234. PW-6 Sri. Sanjay Gupta the then Regional
Director, NCTE, Bengaluru deposed in his evidence that
the CBI, Bengaluru had requested him to furnish
documents pertaining to this case and the CBI officer
also sought clarification relating to the NCTE Act and
accordingly, through his letter dated 02.01.2017 in Ex.P-
118 C.C.No.17622/2017
31, he has furnished the documents to CBI and in Ex.P-
31, he has narrated the clarification regarding para
No.7(7) of NCTE Regulations, 2014. He further states
that Ex.P-32 letter dated 02.05.2016 of NCTE
addressed to the Principal, Sri Sharadha D.Ed., College,
Ananthapura and Ex.P.33 letter dated 02.05.2016
addressed to the Principal, Sri Sharadha D.Ed., College,
Ananthapura regarding granting recognition to Sri
Sharadha D.Ed., College and Ex.P.34 the certificate
issued by him U/s.65(b) Evidence Act in respect of above
said documents.
235. P.W.6 further states that after issuing the
Letter of Intent (LOI) by NCTE, the college has to submit
the fixed deposit receipt in the joint name of institution
and regional director totaling to Rs.24,00,000/- and the
institution has not submitted the FDR as directed by the
NCTE and if the FDR is submitted as directed by the
NCTE, it will be mentioned in the Central Register and
the copy of the same will be kept in the file and original
will be separately kept in the office. He further states
that he has seen the central registry and there is no
mention as to receiving of FDRs from Sri Sharadha
Educational D.Ed., College and Ex.P-33 letter of NCTE
along with Center Dairy Report from 01.04.2016 to
03.01.2017 were submitted to CBI by him and in the
said document, there is no mention regarding receiving
119 C.C.No.17622/2017
of FDR from the Sharadha Educational Society and
formal recognition was issued by the NCTE on
02.05.2016 and even after the formal recognition letter
was issued, the college has not submitted the FDR.
236. P.W.6 was subjected to cross-examination by
the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 wherein he
denied the suggestion made that the information
furnished in Ex.P.31 is false. P.W.6 admits that Ex.P.32
is xerox copy, but he further states that xerox was taken
on the original by him. He further states that he has not
certified to that effect and I.O. has not asked him to
produce the original, hence has not produced the
original. He further states that, he know the procedure
regarding issuance of LOI and on the basis of report of
visiting team and the documents submitted by the
institution, the Regional Committee is deemed fit can
issue the LOI. It is elicited in the cross-examination of
P.W.6 has no personal knowledge regarding the accused
No.1 society. It is pertinent to note that the P.W.6 being
the Regional Director of NCTE has submitted the
documents and narrated clarification to the CBI and he
is deposing before the Court on the basis of documents.
237. Ex.P-31 is the letter dated 02.01.2017 written
by the PW-6 Sri. Sanjay Guptha, Regional Director, SRC
NCTE and gave information that Institution has not
submitted original Fixed Deposit receipt along with the
120 C.C.No.17622/2017
reply to the Letter of Intent and also not submitted
original Fixed Deposit receipt either at the time of
issuance of formal recognition to this office or even till
date. Further, he furnished Annexure -I to III and the
copy of the Center Diary Report along with certificate
u/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act.
238. Ex.P-32 is the Annexure-II i.e letter dated
02.05.2016 issued by the PW-2 to the Principal of Sree
Sarada D.El.Ed college wherein the accused No. 2
endorsed with his signature that he received the copy.
239. Ex.P-33 is the copy of Gazette publication
order dated 02.05.2016 issued by the PW-2 in respect to
grant of recognition to Sree Sarada D.El.Ed college.
Further, the computer print out of Center Diary Report
also furnished by the PW-6 along with certificate u/s
65B of Indian Evidence Act as per Ex.P-34.
240. Ex.P-100 is the original letter dated
04.11.2016 written by P.W.6 the then In-charge Regional
Director by name Sri. Satish Guptha to the Investigating
Officer along with the letters of PW-2, attendance of the
committee members, summary sheet. It reveals that the
In-charge Regional Director was furnished the copy of
summary sheet of 313th meeting of SRC and copy of the
letter sent to Sree Sarada D.El.Ed college on 02.05.2016
121 C.C.No.17622/2017
and copy of the register showing the attendance of the
Committee Members.
241. Ex.P-7 is the NCTE Southern Regional Office,
SRC Meetings Attendance Register from 300th meeting to
324th meeting. It reveals that the date of meetings and
the signatures of the Chairman, Members, State
Government Representatives i.e Directors of SCERT of
Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil
Nadu and Secretary Education of Pandichery, Andaman
Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Regional Director who
attended the said meetings is found in the Register.
Ex.P-7(a) is the signature of the PW-2 who was the
Regional Director for attending the 300 th SRC meeting.
Further, the signatures of the PW-2 is also found in the
Register for attending the 301 to 318th SRC meeting.
242. Ex.P-8 is the Booklet and Ex.P-18 is the
summary containing the decision of 313rd emergent
meeting of SRC held on 02.05.2016 and 03.05.2016 and
Ex.P-14 is copy of the same. It reveals that in Serial No.
167, the decision made in respect to accused No. 1
Institution to run the D.El.Ed and B.Ed courses as
under:
B.Ed: 1. The reply is not correct, no of
faculty members is not the only factor.
Staff pattern is equally relevant. This
case, can if possible be met by faculty
sharing between allied courses. But, in
122 C.C.No.17622/2017this case, even the B.Ed course does not
have faculty in Sociology/Psychology to
handle the Curricular load adequately. 2.
Issue SCN accordingly.
D.El.Ed: 1. The reply is not correct, no of
faculty members is not the only factor.
Staff pattern is equally relevant. This
case, can if possible be met by faculty
sharing between allied courses. But, in
this case, even the D.El.Ed course does
not have faculty in Sociology/Psychology
to handle the curricular load adequately.
2. Issue SCN accordingly.
243. P.W.18 Sri. K. Anjayya Retired District
Education Officer in his evidence deposed that from
14.11.2014 to 31.10.2016 he was working as D.E.O.,
Ananthapura and as a D.E.O. his duties were inspection
of schools, Teacher Education Colleges, Establishment of
Schools, Service Matters of Teachers etc., and for
starting new D.Ed., College the applicant has to get
affiliation from NCTE, Bengaluru and they have to get
the staff faculty selected through the SCERT and for the
purpose of affiliation, the D.Ed., college they should
have infrastructure and other facilities as enumerated by
the NCTE.
244. P.W.18 identified Ex.P.63 letter dated
27.10.2016, addressed by Smt.M.V.Rajyalakshmi,
Director, SCERT, to the investigating officer and
identified Ex.P.64 Check list for issue of NOC, pertaining
123 C.C.No.17622/2017
to Sharada Education Society and identified Ex.P.65
proceedings of the Director of SCERT, dated: 25.05.2015
and Ex.P.66 proceedings of the Director of SCERT, dated:
03.03.2016 and Ex.P.67 proceedings of the Director of
SCERT, dated: 16.03.2016 and identified Ex.P.68
approved staff list of Sharada Education Society and
identified Ex.P.69 affiliation Statement of Sharada
Education Society and identified Ex.P.70 letter of RJDS,
address to Director, SCERT and identified Ex.P.71
Inspection Report along with enclosures issued by the
R.J.D and D.E.O and identified Ex.P.72 letter
dated:6.06.2016 written by Rajalakshmi, Director,
SCERT, to Principal Secretary, Govt.School Education
Department and identified Ex.P.73 G.O.dated
26.07.2016 and 6.11.2017 and identified Ex.P.74 letter
dated:13.10.2016 written by him to the I.O. regarding
clarification of Sharada Education Society.
245. P.W.18 further deposed that Ex.P.66
pertaining to proceedings dated 03.03.2016 and
Smt.Rajalakshmi had nominated him and Principal by
name K.Munaiah as a representative to select faculty of
Sri.Sharada D.Ed., College Ananthapur and
K.Munnaiah, Principal of Govt.DIET College, Conducted
written examinations and interviewed for 8 candidates
on 9.3.2016 at Govt. DIET. College, Bukkapatnam and
selected them and thereafter Smt.M.V.Rajalakshmi had
124 C.C.No.17622/2017approved the staff list of the 8 faculty members as per
approved staff list enclosed to Ex.P.71. He further
deposed that he knew Sri.Obulapathy, who is the A.P.
Govt. School Teachers and President of A.P.State Teacher
Federation, Ananthapura and he has signed on the
inspection Report and there was sufficient facilities to
start college.
246. Considering the evidence of P.W.18, he was
treated as partly hostile and he was subjected to cross-
examination by the Ld. PP with regard to he signed the
proposal and inspection report as per the instruction of
accused No.3, even though accused No.1 institution do
not have basic infrastructure to start B.Ed. College, but
he denied the said suggestions.
247. P.W.20 Sri. Premanandan Retired Regional
Joint Director of School Education deposed in his
evidence that he sent Ex.P.70 letter to the Director,
SCERT, Hyderabad and in order start new D.Ed College,
it has to get affiliation from the SCERT Govt. of AP and in
order to get the affiliation to the D.Ed College, it should
have 19 Rooms and other basic infrastructure. He
further states that Shri Sharada Educational Society had
made an application to the SCERT, requesting for grant
of affiliation for the D.Ed Course in their College and the
Director SCERT in turn issued orders nominating
125 C.C.No.17622/2017
himself and Mr. Anjayya to conduct inspection of the
Colleges and for submitting the report.
248. Further, P.W.20 states that on 07.05.2016, he
visited the College for the purpose of inspection and the
accused No.1 society is having 15 rooms and the
institution have suitable infrastructure and Ex.P.71
inspection report prepared by him in respect of Shri
Sharada D.Ed College and he has signed on the Ex.P.71
as per Ex.P.71 (a) and further he deposed that as per the
guidelines 19 rooms are required to start D.Ed. College.
Further he states that no one had requested him to give
Ex.P.71 inspection report in particular manner and
fashion. Considering his evidence, he treated as partly
hostile and subjected to cross-examination by the Ld. PP
wherein he denied the suggestions made that he
prepared the inspection report at the request of accused
No.3. He further states that he has not taken
photographs of the rooms at the time of inspection.
249. According to the evidence of P.W.18 and 20,
there was sufficient facilities to start the D.El.Ed., college
by the accused No.1 institution.
250. Ex.P-66 is the attested copy of the proceedings
of the Director, SCERT, Andhra Pradesh dated
03.03.2016 for constitution of Staff Selection Committee
to Sri. Sarada D.El.Ed college of Akuledu village.
126 C.C.No.17622/2017
251. Ex.P-67 is the original proceedings of the
Director, SCERT, Andhra Pradesh dated 16.03.2016 for
constituting the Verification Committee Members to
verify the correctness of selection made by the Selection
Committee and also for verification of the original
certificates of the selected candidates.
252. Ex.P-68 is the attested copy of the approved
staff list of D.Ed course for Sri. Sarada D.El.Ed college of
Akuledu village.
253. Ex.P-69 is the attested copy of the affiliation of
private D.Ed colleges for the year 2016-17-renewal
scrutiny report of applications with respect to Sri.
Sarada D.El.Ed college of Akuledu village wherein
recommendation was made for affiliation.
254. Ex.P-70 is the attested copy of the letter dated
12.05.2016 submitted by the Regional Joint Director of
School Education, Kadapa to the Director of SCERT,
Andhra Pradesh. It reveals that Regional Joint Director
of School Education, Kadapa has furnished the
Inspection Report for grant of affiliation in respect to Sri.
Sarada D.El.Ed college of Akuledu village to start
D.El.Ed course after verification of infrastructure
facilities, academic inputs provided by the management
as per NCTE norms.
127 C.C.No.17622/2017
255. Ex.P-71 is the attested copy of the Inspection
Report for fresh affiliation for the academic year 2016-
17. It reveals that date of inspection mentioned as
12.05.2016 and inspecting officers Sri. V. Premanandam
and Sri. K. Anjaiah are visited the Sri. Sarada D.Ed
college, Akuledu village and extent of land mentioned as
01 acre and built-up area mentioned as 3282.98 Square
meters. Further, the measurement of the classrooms,
multipurpose rooms etc mentioned in square feet.
Further, it is certified that they were verified the original
documents and filled the proforma accordingly. Further
in the enclosures, the existing building plan issued by
the Gram Panchayath/Municipality, building completion
certificate issued by the Gram
Panchayath/Municipality, Building Soundness
Certificate issued by Panchayath Raj Engineer are
mentioned in serial No. 3 to 5. The attested copies of all
the enclosures of Inspection Report also got marked as
Ex.P-71 including attested copy of the Building Plan
issued by PW-9 Sri. B. Thirupal, attested copy of the
Building Completion Certificate dated 25.08.2015,
Soundness Certificate.
256. Ex.P-72 is the original Letter of
Recommendation for fresh affiliation for the year 2016-
17 to start the course B.Ed and D.Ed by Sri. Sarada
D.El.Ed college of Akuledu village and original Annexure
128 C.C.No.17622/2017
-I issued by the Director of SCERT, Andra Pradesh
wherein recommended for grant of fresh affilition to Sri.
Sarada D.El.Ed college for the courses of B.Ed and D.Ed
subject to condition. Further it reveals that the built-up
area mentioned in Annexure-I is 3282.98 Square Meters.
257. Ex.P-73 is the attested copy of the order dated
26.07.2016 issued by the Principal Secretary to
Government wherein fresh affiliation granted
conditionally to Sri. Sarada D.El.Ed college, Akuledu
village. The attested copies of the order dated 06.11.2007
for framing the certain norms for selection of staffs of
Elementary Teacher Education Program and attested
copy of the Appendix-II also marked as Ex.P-73.
258. Ex.P-74 is the original letter dated 13.10.2016
issued by the PW-18 K. Anjaiah to the Investigating
Officer for enclosing the attested copies of the
proceedings dated 27.11.2010 of District Education
Officer, Anantapur and check list of Sri. Sarada D.Ed
college.
259. P.W.22 Sri. K. Munaiah the then Retd. Senior
Lecturer, District Institute of Education and Training in
his evidence deposed that on 19.05.2016, he was
promoted as Sr. Lecturer and posted to DIET College,
Bukkapathnam and from 2016 and he worked as in-
charge Principal of DIET College, Bukkapathnam and as
129 C.C.No.17622/2017
a Principal his duties and responsibilities were to
attending the administration of the DIET College and
giving lecturers to the trainees and his work also
includes selection of staff for the private D.Ed Colleges
260. P.W.22 identified Ex.P.3 (e) file containing the
proceedings dated 03.03.2016 of the director SCERT in
page No.220 and deposed that the said proceedings in
Ex.P.3 (e) was prepared by the Director SCERT for
selection of D. Ed Lecturers for Shri Sharada
Educational College. Further P.W.22 identified Ex.P.3 (f)
which contains a letter addressed by Sri Seshadri Reddy
in favour of Anjaiah and in page No.217 which contains
a letter addressed by Sri Seshadri Reddy to him
requesting them to attend the staff selection on
09.03.2016. He further identified Ex.P.3 (g) resolution of
the committee members regarding selection of staff in
respect of Shri Sharada D.Ed College and identified
Ex.P.74 and page No.3 of the said documents contains a
check list and he deposed that he has signed on it and
Page No.4 of Ex.P.74 is a brief report of the nominee of
the staff selection committee for Private D.Ed College and
he has signed on it.
261. P.W.22 deposed that from 09.05.2008 to
14.11.2008 he worked as in-charge District Education
Officer in Ananthapur District and he know accused
No.3 and he is a Teacher and used to meet him regarding
130 C.C.No.17622/2017
the Teachers service problems and as per the orders of
Director SCERT and he has been nominated as the
member of staff selection committee for Shri Sharada
D.Ed College, Akuledu Village and once accused No.2
and 3 met him at the DIET College, Bukkapathnam and
they asked him if any one of the faculty member was not
present, the selection process should be continued, for
that he has refused and he has insisted them to bring all
the candidates for the written examination and oral
interview.
262. P.W.22 further deposed that on 09.03.2016 he
conducted the examination for selection of Lecturers and
at that time accused No.2 and committee members were
present and accordingly, he has selected the candidates
as the faculty member of committee for Shri Sharada
D.Ed College and he identified Ex.P.3 (h) the approved
staff list of D.Ed Course in respect of Shri Sharada D.Ed
College and as per the Ex.P.3, he has selected 8
candidates.
263. P.W.22 was cross-examined by the Ld.
Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 wherein he admits
that selection of the faculty is done by following
procedure and without any influence from anybody. He
denied the suggestion made to him that accused No.2
never met him.
131 C.C.No.17622/2017
264. Further P.W.22 was cross-examined by the Ld.
Counsel for the accused No.3 wherein he states that he
does not remember exact date and time when accused
No.3 met him and he has no idea where accused No.3
was working and under what capacity at that time. He
denied the suggestion made by the Ld. Counsel for the
accused No.3 that accused No.3 never met him. Hence,
as per the evidence of P.W.22, accused No.2 and 3
approached him at the time of staff selection to the Sree
Sarada D.Ed. College, Akuledu village and asked him to
do selection process in the absence of any faculty
member, for which he refused.
265. P.W.23 – Dr. K. Pandurangaswamy in his
evidence states that he handed over the Ex.P.77 to 80
documents to the CBI.
266. Ex.P-77 is the original letter dated 13.10.2016
issued by the In-charge Director SCERT, Andhra pradesh
to the Investigating Officer for furnishing the information
with required records. Ex.P-78 is the attested copy of
the proceedings of the Director, SCERT, Andhra Pradesh
dated 25.02.2015 for issuance of NOC to start D.El.Ed
course by the Sri. Sarada D.Ed college, Akuledu village.
Ex.P-79 is the attested copy of the proceedings of the
Director, SCERT, Andhra Pradesh dated 03.03.2016 for
constituting staff selection committee to start D.El.Ed
132 C.C.No.17622/2017
course by the Sri. Sarada D.El.Ed college, Akuledu
village. Ex.P-80 is the proceedings of the Director,
SCERT, Andhra Pradesh dated 16.03.2016 for approval
of the staff list to start D.El.Ed course by the Sri. Sarada
D.Ed college, Akuledu village along with the attested
copy of the approved staff list.
267. P.W.26 – Sri. M. Janardhana Charyulu the
then DEO, office of the Regional Joint Director of School
Education in his evidence states that he has handed over
the Ex.P.82 and 83 documents to CBI and the Director of
SCERT A.P. Amaravathi was the competent Authority for
granting Affiliation to private D. Ed Colleges and the
Director of SCERT issued the final list of Private D. Ed
Colleges in Ananthapur District as per Ex.P.83 and in
the said list in the Sl. No.45 the name of Sri Sarada
Education Society reflects and the capacity of the
students mentioned in the said documents as 50 seats.
268. P.W.26 further states that during the year
2016, the Diploma in Elementary Education Common
Entrance Test (DEECET) was conducted through Online
and the qualified candidates exercised their options
through Website and accordingly seats were allotted to
the candidates as per their options and out of 50 seats
allotted to Sri Sarada Education Society, 40 seats were
allotted under the convener quota and the remaining 10
seats were filled by the management. He further states
133 C.C.No.17622/2017
that an amount of Rs.1.22 Lakhs was paid by the
candidates towards the convener – quota – tuition fees at
the time of counseling and the amount was transferred
to the bank account of College held at SBI, Sai Nagar
Branch, Ananthapur and the Tuition Fees of Rs.12,500/-
from each candidates has been collected by the
management and the 4 seats were filled by the institute
under management quota.
269. Ex.P-82 is the original letter dated 15.05.2017
issued by the Regional Joint Director of School
Education to the Investigating Officer for furnishing the
information sought by the Investigating Officer. It reveals
that he gave information that Anantapura District the
list of 49 private D.Ed colleges were included in Web
Counseling wherein the name of the college Sri. Sarada
D.Ed college, Ahuledu village, Singanamala Mandal,
Anantapura District with the intake capacity of 50 seats
and out of 50 seats, 40 seats(i.e 80%) were allotted to
convener quota to be filled by Web Counseling by the
convener and the remaining 10 seats (i.e 20%) will be
filled by management. Accordingly, 30 seats were filled
by convener quota and 4 seats by Management quota
and total amount of Rs. 1,22,000/- were paid by the
candidates towards tuition fee at the time of counseling
and the same amount was transferred to the A/c No.
10873694841 SBI main branch, Sainagar, Anantapura
134 C.C.No.17622/2017
on 02.05.2017 through on-line by the convener DEECET
2016 and RJDSC Guntur. Ex.P-82(a) is the signature of
the Regional Joint Director of School Education by name
Sri. K.V Srinivasulu Reddy which was identified by the
PW-26.
270. Ex.P-83 is the attested copy of the list of
candidates with hall ticket number and details of
amount paid in respect to Sree Sarada D.El.Ed college,
Akuledu village along with attested copies of the list of
candidates admitted in Management quota, college-wise
final allotment list, final list of private D.Ed colleges
along with total intake of seats.
271. P.W.26 was not cross-examined by the Ld.
Counsels for the accused No.1 to 3. Hence as per the
evidence of P.W.26 and Ex.P.82 and 83 documents, the
Director of SCERT, A.P., Amaravathi was issued final list
of private D.Ed., colleges in Ananthapura District for
granting affiliation as per Ex.P.83 and in the said list,
the name of accused No.1 society was shown in Sl.No.45
and out of 50 seats allotted to the accused No.1 society,
40 seats were allotted under the convener quota and the
remaining 10 seats were filled by the management and
an amount of Rs.1.22 Lakhs was paid by the candidates
towards the convener – quota – tuition fees at the time of
counseling and the amount was transferred to the bank
account of College held at SBI, Sai Nagar Branch,
135 C.C.No.17622/2017
Ananthapur and the Tuition Fees of Rs.12,500/- from
each candidates has been collected by the management
and the 4 seats were filled by the institute under
management quota.
272. P.W.28 – Sri. G. Ramana Reddy in his
evidence states that during the year 2017, the CBI
Investigation Officer called him to the CBI office, at that
time they have shown Ex.P.3 (i) staff profile in the file
pertaining to Sri Sarada Education Society and in the
said document in Sl.No.1 his name reflects as Principal
and he can see his photograph also. He further states
that he know accused No.3 since about 10 years and
during the year 2016, he saw advertisement in the news
paper namely Shakshi calling applications for the post of
Principal and lecture in Sri Sarada D. Ed College and he
has called the number given in the advertisement Mr.
Satyanarayana and spoke to him and after that, he told
that he want to meet him and he came to his house and
he requested him to give photocopies of his certificates
and called him to appear in the examination. He further
states that he did not joined to the college, during the
time of process he has given his photographs and
certificates to Mr. Satyanarayana and he also went to
Bukkapatnam for taking examination and interview and
he asked the salary of Rs.20,000/-, but they offered only
Rs.15,000/- and therefore, he did not join and he does
136 C.C.No.17622/2017
not know how his name is reflected as Principal in Ex.P.3
(i) and in Ex.P.3 file in sheet No.181 to 191 were his
marks cards.
273. Ex.P.3 (i) is the copy of the staff profile
wherein the name and photograph of P.W.28 shown as
Principal and lecturer in English in Sree Sarada D.Ed.
College, Akuledu Village.
274. Further the original affidavit attested by the
notary is also available in sheet No.231 of Ex.P.3,
wherein the name of P.W.28 shown as he is the Principal
cum Lecturer in English of Sree Sarada D.Ed. College,
Akuledu village.
275. Ex.P.3 (h) is the original Annexure-I issued by
the Director, SCERT wherein the name of P.W.28 shown
as Principal and Lecturer in English with respect to
tentative approved staff list of D.Ed., course in Sree
Sarada D.El.Ed., college, Akuledu village.
276. According to Ex.P.3 (h) and (i) documents,
P.W.28 shown as Principal and Lecturer in English of
Sree Sarada D.El.Ed., college, Akuledu village. But as
per the evidence of P.W.28, he handed over his
certificates and photographs with an intention to join
Sree Sarada D.Ed., college and he attended the
examination and interview, but he did not join the said
137 C.C.No.17622/2017
job. However, the name of P.W.28 reflected in approved
staff list as Principal.
277. Ex.P-103 is the Receipt Memo dated
06.05.2017 in respect to production of documents i.e (i)
college-wise final allotment list, list of candidates
admitted in Management quota, (ii) office copies of the
final admission letters, provisional admission letters,
transfer of admission letters issued to the students for
admission in to D.El.Ed course for 2016-17 batch in Sree
Sarada D.El.Ed college, (iii) Pupil’s Attendance Register,
(iv) Photocopy of the SBI Pass book of accused No. 1
Society. These documents produced by the accused No. 2
to the Investigating Officer. Ex.P-104 is the copies of
college-wise final allotment list, list of candidates
admitted in Management quota. Ex.P-105 is the office
copies of the final admission letters, acknowledgments,
check list, transfer of admission letters, provisional
admission letters. Ex.P-106 is the Pupil’s Attendance
Register of Sree Sarada D.El.Ed college of Akuledu village
and it reveals that total 35 students were attended the
D.El.Ed course. Ex.P-107 is the photocopy of the SBI
bank Pass book held in the name of accused No. 1
Society in A/c No. 30760034394 with SBI, Gandhi
Bazhar branch, Anantapura.
138 C.C.No.17622/2017
278. The original two request letters of the accused
No. 2 are marked in Ex.P-5 at sheet No. 97 and 98 which
reveals that the accused No. 2 written letters to Regional
Director of SRC, NCTE, Bengaluru that the Management
members requested for FDRs Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs.
7,00,000/- to be submitted immediately as soon as
possible.
279. As per above oral and documentary evidence,
the Regional Director, NCTE in her orders dated
02.05.2016 which is marked in Ex.P-3 at sheet No. 215
and Ex.P-5 at sheet No. 340 and as per Ex.P.33 Gazette
Publication order, granted recognition to Sree Sarada
D.El.Ed college for conducting D.El.Ed programs for two
years with one unit of 50 students and Sree Sarada B.Ed
college for conducting B.Ed programs for two years with
one unit of 50 students from the academic session 2016-
17 subject to conditions for deposit of Endowment Fund
of Rs.5,00,000/- each and reserve fund of Rs. 7,00,000/-
each and comply with the various other norms and
standards prescribed in NCTE regulations.
280. As per above said oral and documentary
evidence, the prosecution has established that Sree
Sarada D.Ed., college and Sree Sarada B.Ed., college
have not submitted FDRs towards the endowment fund
and the reserve fund as directed by the NCTE, but
139 C.C.No.17622/2017
obtained the formal recognition orders for the D.El.Ed.
and the B.Ed courses.
281. As per the prosecution case, in pursuance of
criminal conspiracy and in order to cheat the NCTE,
accused No.2 and 3 forged and created Land Conversion
proceedings dated 15.11.2015 to falsely show that the
agricultural land at Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu village can be
used for running institution and the said document
issued by the Revenue Divisional Office, Ananthapura
district and said document submitted by accused No.2
and 3 to the Visiting Team as it is a genuine document.
282. As discussed above, the accused No.2 who is
the authorized signatory of the applications submitted to
the SRC-NCTE for grant of recognition to run B.Ed., and
D.El.Ed., courses under accused No.1 institution,
mentioned in his original letters marked in Ex.P.3 and 5
which were received by the SRC-NCTE on 18.06.2015
that he submitted the Land conversion certificate/land
use certificate at Sl.No.6 of enclosures. But the said
Land conversion certificate/land use certificate are not
available in Ex.P.1, 2 and 4 documents which were said
to be submitted by the accused No.2. Further, as
discussed above, at the time of scrutiny of the
applications submitted by the accused No.2, it is
mentioned in Ex.P.3 and 5 as notarized land use
certificate is not submitted. Hence, the SRC in its 296 th
140 C.C.No.17622/2017
meeting taken a decision to ask visiting team to obtain
relevant land and building documents. Further, in Ex.P.3
and 5 original note sheets, it is mentioned that the land
use certificate submitted along with visiting team report.
283. P.W.3 who is the member of visiting team in
his evidence states that during their visit, the office
bearers of accused No.1 society namely accused No.3
and others have given building plan, property documents
and the said documents submitted by the office bearers
are attested by themselves.
284. In Ex.P.5 (g) visiting team report, it is clearly
mentioned in Sl.No.2 details as per Land documents that
Land Use Certificate (conversion from agriculture to non
agriculture) issued by Revenue Divisional Office,
Ananthapura, dated 19.11.2015. Further in this
document at page 15 also the same details mentioned in
respect to Land Usage Certificate.
285. Ex.P-5(o) is the self attested copy of the
proceedings of the Competent Authority and Revenue
Divisional Officer, Anantapuram dated 15.11.2015,
wherein the original seal of accused No. 1 society and
original signature of accused No. 2 affixed in each page.
This document reveals that the said copy of the
proceedings given to the accused No. 2. Further, it
reveals that the accused No. 2 who is the Secretary and
141 C.C.No.17622/2017
Correspondent of the accused No. 1 Society has applied
for conversion of agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 241/2
measuring 01 acre, situated at Akuledu village,
Singanamala Mandal for the purpose of non-agriculture
and the request of the applicant is found to be consistent
with the provision of the Act, hence the permission is
accorded for conversion of the agricultural land in to
non-agricultural purpose on the terms and conditions.
According to this document, the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Anantapuramu has permitted for conversion of
01 acre of agricultural land in Sy. No. 241/2 situated at
Akuledu village for non-agricultural purpose and the
signature with date 19.112.2015 of the Revenue
Divisional Officer is affixed on the said document as per
Ex.P-5(p).
286. According to the evidence of P.W.3, the
property documents which were handed over to the
visiting team during the visit and inspection were self
attested by the office bearers of the accused No.1
institution. On perusal of Ex.P.5 (o) document, it is self
attested by the accused No.2 in each page. Further, the
signatures of the accused No.2 in Ex.P.5 (o) also marked
as Q5 and Q6. Hence, in view of above oral and
documentary evidence, it clearly shows that Ex.P.5 (o)
self attested copy of proceedings of Revenue Divisional
Officer dated 15.11.2015 has been submitted to the
142 C.C.No.17622/2017
visiting team by the accused No.3 and other office
bearers of accused No.1 institution.
287. P.W.13 – Sri. D. Hussain Sahib, the then
Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapuram, in his
evidence states that the CBI officer have called him
before examination and questioned him regarding Ex.P.5
(o) Land Conversion Proceedings dated 15.11.2015
purportedly issued from their office. He further states
that this document was not issued from their office and
in the said document, his name mentioned as
“Mr.D.Hassain Sahib M.A. B.Ed.” and it is also shown in
the document that it was issued to Sharada Education,
Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society,
Akuledu, Ananthapuram and it is also shown in the said
document that land to the extent of 1 acre in
Sy.No.241/2 of Akuledu village, Singanamala mandal,
Ananthapuram was converted land from agricultural to
non agricultural usage.
288. P.W.13 further states that he has not
converted the above said land from agricultural to non
agricultural usage when he was worked as R.D.O. in
Ananthapuram and no such proceedings was happened
during his tenure either by himself or any of other officer
of their department. He further states that the signature
affixed on the said document is not belongs to him and
143 C.C.No.17622/2017
the name mentioned in the D. Hassain Sahib is not
correct and his correct name is D. Hussain Sahib and
also it will not be mentioned as “Mr.”.
289. P.W.13 further states that the reference
mentioned in the said document that
No.D.Dis.D.2/1852/2015 dated 15.11.2015 does not
belongs to land conversion certificate and the said
reference was used for subject of Mines and Minerals in
the R.D.O. office. He further states that in Ex.P.48, they
informed to the C.B.I. that after verifying the office
records, they have found that Sharada Education Society
has not applied for conversion of land and therefore
issuance of conversion proceedings from their office does
not arise at all.
290. P.W.13 further states that Ex.P.50 letter
dated 26.06.2015 was addressed to the Tahsildar
Kuderu to inspect the Sy.No.579 of Maratla village of
Kuderu Mandal, Ananthapuram District for grant of no
objection certificate for grant of mining lease and the
reference No.R.C.No.C/1852/2015 dated 26.06.2015
was referred to the subject of Mine and Minerals and he
does not know correspondent of the Sharada
Educational Society.
291. P.W.13 was subjected to cross-examination by
the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 wherein he
144 C.C.No.17622/2017
admits that the Revenue Divisional Officer is the
competent authority to issue Land Conversion Order and
while issuing Land Conversion Order, they are
maintaining register ledger in their office and they have
not handed over the land conversion register to the CBI.
He denied the suggestions made to him that they have
intentionally not handed over the said register to the
CBI. It is the specific case of the prosecution that Ex.P.5
(o) is the forged document. In this regard, the
prosecution has examined P.W.13 who was the
competent authority to issue Land Conversion Order at
the relevant point of time. Further, P.W.13 in his
evidence specifically denied the issuance of Ex.P.5 (o)
document and also his signature shown as per Ex.P.5
(p). It is pertinent to note that according to Ex.P.5 (o),
P.W.13 is the author of the said document, but he clearly
denyed his signature on the said document and issuance
of the said document by him and his office. Further,
P.W.13 specifically states that after verifying the office
records, they have found that Sharada Education Society
has not applied for conversion of land and therefore
issue of conversion proceedings from their office does not
arise at all. Hence, the prosecution has proved its
burden by examining the P.W.13 who alleged to have
been issued Ex.P.5 (o) document. Hence, there is no
substance in the contention of the accused No.1 and 2
145 C.C.No.17622/2017
that P.W.13 has intentionally not handed over the said
register to the CBI.
292. Further, P.W.13 in his cross-examination
states that they are not maintaining the register for being
received the application for Land Conversion. He further
states that when the applicants submits application
through online, then RDO downloaded the application
and sent to the concerned Tahsildar for inquiry and all
the applications submitted by the applicants are
available in the system and they have not handed over
the copies of the documents which were stored in the
computer system. Further, he states that they have not
submitted any documents to show that they have verified
the online portal. He further states that the Land
Conversion Orders maintained manually. It is pertinent
to note that P.W.13 states that they have informed to CBI
in Ex.P.48 document that after verifying the office
records, they have found that Sarada Education society
has not applied for Conversion of Land and therefore
issuance of conversion proceedings from their office does
not arise at all.
293. Ex.P-48 is the true copy of the letter dated
04.10.2016 written by Sri. A. Malola, Revenue Divisional
Officer, Anantapuramu to CBI that ‘After verifying the
office records, it is found that Sri. S. Sheshadri Reddy,
Secretary and Correspondent, Sree Sarada Educational
146 C.C.No.17622/2017
Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society, Akuledu
village, Singanamala Mandal, Anatapuram District has
not applied for conversion of land in respect of the land
in Sy.No. 241/2, extent 01 acre of Akuledu village of
Singanamala Mandal, hence, issue of conversion
proceedings from this office does not arise and the
conversion proceedings sent along with the reference
cited above has not been issued from this office and it is
fake’.
294. Further PW-13 identified the original
signature of Superintendent by name Sri.
Lakshminarayana and the same is marked as Ex.P-48(a).
In the cross-examination of P.W.13 he admits that he is
seeing Ex.P.48 first time in the Court and he has not
seen the person signing in the Ex.P.48. Ex.P.48 is the
original signature of Divisional Admin Officer of the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapuram which was
identified by the P.W.13 as Ex.P.48 (a).
295. Section 47 of Indian Evidence Act reads as
under;
‘When the Court has to form an
opinion as to the person by whom any
document was written or signed, the
opinion of any person acquainted with
the handwriting of the person by whom
it is supposed to be written or signed
that it was or was not written or signed
by that person, is a relevant fact.
147 C.C.No.17622/2017
Explanations : A person is said to be
acquainted with the handwriting of
another person when he has seen that
person write, or when he has received
documents purporting to be written by
that person in answer to documents
written by himself or under his
authority and addressed to that
person, or when, in the ordinary course
of business, documents purporting to
be written by that person have been
habitually submitted to him.
Illustrations ; The question is,
whether a given letter is in the
underwriting of A, a merchant in
London.
B is a merchant in Calcutta, who has
written letters addressed to A and
received letters purporting to be written
by him. C is B’s clerk, whose duty it
was to examine and file B’s
correspondence. D is B’s broker, to
whom B habitually submitted the
letters purporting to be written by A for
the purpose of advising him thereon.
The opinions of B, C and D on the
question whether the letter is in the
handwriting of A are relevant, though
neither B, C nor D ever saw A write’.
296. In view of the above provision of law, the
opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of
the person by whom it is supposed to be written or
signed that it was or was not written or signed by that
person, is a relevant fact.
148 C.C.No.17622/2017
297. In this case, P.W.13 who was the Revenue
Divisional Officer has identified the signature of the
Divisional Admin Officer of Revenue Divisional Office,
Ananthapuram as he was the Superintendent by name
Lakshminarayana. Though P.W.13 has not seen the Sri.
Lakshminarayana signing in Ex.P.48, but he was the
officer superior to Lakshminarayana and he acquainted
with the signature of Lakshminarayana. Hence, P.W.13
has identified the signature of Lakshminarayana. Hence,
the opinion of P.W.13 who acquainted with the signature
of Lakshminarayana is relevant fact to show that the
Ex.P.48 (a) signature pertaining to the
Lakshminarayana. Hence, there is no substance in the
contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and
2.
298. Ex.P-49 is the Receipt Memo and Ex.P-50 is
the original letter bearing R.C No. C/1852/2015 dated
26.06.2015 written by the PW-13 Sri. D. Hussain Sahib
to the Tahasildar, Kuderu and it reveals that the said
reference in respect to the inspection of the Sy. No. 579
measuring 04 acre of Marutta village of Kuderu Mandal,
Anantapuram District for grant of queary lease. Ex.P-
50(a) is the signature of the PW-13.
299. P.W.14 – Sri. D. Tirumala Reddy the then
Deputy Tahsildar (Land Matters), RDO office,
149 C.C.No.17622/2017
Ananthapura in his evidence states that from
29.08.2009 to 31.01.2017 he worked as Deputy
Tahsildar (land matters) in the Office of the R.D.O.
Ananthapura and his duties were to dealing with land
related matters including land conversion. He further
states that the CBI officer has called him for examination
and shown him Ex.P.5 (o) the land conversion
proceedings dated 15.11.2015 and he states that the
said document was not at all issued from their office. He
further states that the Signature affixed in said
document is not at all belongs to their officers and he
has not received any application for the conversion of
land in Sy.No.241/2, Akaledu village Singanamala
mandal, Ananthapura District from agricultural to non-
agricultural purpose.
300. P.W.14 further states that he has verified the
records available in their office regarding application of
Sharada Educational Society for the conversion of the
land and found that they have not at all applied for
conversion of land to the extent of 1 acre and in their
office the seat No.”D2″ was handling the matters
pertaining to land issue and land conversion. He further
states that the reference No. Mentioned in Ex.P.5(o) that
is No.C/1852/2015 dated 15.11.2015 is belongs to “C”
seat and the “C” seat deals with mines and minerals
subject and the above reference is regarding grant of
150 C.C.No.17622/2017
Quarry Lease in Sy.No.579 of Martula village, Kuderu
mandal, Ananthapura. He further states that Ex.P.50
shows that reference No.1852/2015 pertains to
Sy.No.579 of Martula village, Kuderu mandal,
Ananthapura and it is pertaining to mines and minerals.
301. P.W.14 was subjected to cross-examination by
the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 wherein he
states that the procedure to get land conversion is that
to submit the application physically to the office and
their Head Office i.e. R.D.O will receive the applications
and whatever application received by them, they had
maintained the same in the register and to each
application, they will give separate number. He further
states that he has verified the register to know that
whether the application was submitted or not and he has
maintained a register, to know that whether the
applications received by him and he has not handed over
the register to the CBI officer. Further he admits that
whatever he is deposing before this Hon’ble Court is only
on the basis of records and to know whether application
was submitted or not, the register is very much
necessary and once land conversion order is issued, they
will maintain a register. He further states that while
giving statement before the CBI officer, he has stated
that after verifying the documents, he has given the
statement. Further he admits that he has no difficulty to
151 C.C.No.17622/2017
submit the register to the CBI. He denied the suggestion
made to him that without verifying the documents he is
deposing false evidence before the Court.
302. According to the evidence of P.W.14, Ex.P.5 (o)
was not at all issued from their office and the signature
affixed in the said document is not at all belongs to their
officers. P.W.14 is the then Deputy Tahsildar in the office
of RDO Ananthapura, when P.W.13 was working as
RDO, Ananthapura.
303. In view of Section 47 of Indian Evidence Act,
the opinion of any person acquainted with the
handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be
written or signed that it was or was not written or signed
by that person, is a relevant fact.
304. In this case, P.W.14 who was the Deputy
Tahsildar has specifically states that the signature
affixed in the Ex.P.5 (o) document is not at all belongs to
their officers. Hence, the opinion of P.W.14 who
acquainted with the signature of P.W.13 is relevant fact
to show that the signature in Ex.P.5 (o) not pertaining to
the P.W.13.
305. According to the evidence of P.W.14, the
application for conversion of land shall be submitted
physically and such applications received by them were
152 C.C.No.17622/2017
maintained in the Register by giving separate number
and he verified the register to know that whether the
application was submitted or not, but he has not handed
over the said register to the CBI. Though P.W.14 has not
handed over the register maintained in the RDO office
with respect to conversion of Land, but he specifically
states that he verified the records to know that whether
application was submitted or not and he has not received
any application for conversion of the land bearing
Sy.No.241/2 of Akuledu village. Hence, there is no
substance in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the
accused No.1 and 2.
306. P.W.12 – Sri. P. Venugopala Gupta, the then
Mandal Surveyor of Tahsildar Office, Singanamala
Mandal stated in his evidence that Ex.P.45 Adangal
Extract of Sy.No.241/2 of Akuledu village is a dry land.
307. Ex.P-49 is the Receipt Memo and Ex.P-50 is
the original letter bearing R.C No. C/1852/2015 dated
26.06.2015 written by the PW-13 Sri. D. Hussain Sahib
to the Tahasildar, Kuderu and it reveals that the said
reference in respect to the inspection of the Sy. No. 579
measuring 04 acre of Marutta village of Kuderu Mandal,
Anantapuram District for grant of quarry lease. Ex.P-
50(a) is the signature of the PW-13.
153 C.C.No.17622/2017
308. According to the evidence of P.W.13 and 14,
the reference number mentioned in Ex.P.5 (o) pertaining
to the grant of quarry lease under the Mines and
Minerals and not belongs to Land Conversion Order.
Ex.P.50 reveals that the said reference
RC.No.C/1852/2015 dated 26.06.2015 in respect to the
inspection of the Sy. No. 579 measuring 04 acre of
Marutta village of Kuderu Mandal, Anantapuram District
for grant of quarry lease. In Ex.P.5 (o), the dispatch
number mentioned as D2/1852/2015 dated 15.11.2015
is mentioned.
309. P.W.36 Sri. P. Venugopala Rao, the then Asst.
Director and Scientist ‘C’ at CFSL, Hyderabad deposed in
his evidence that he independently examined the
questioned documents marked as Q1 to Q31 and
specimen documents marked as S1 to S18 utilizing
various scientific aids that includes lenses of various
magnifications and applied the basic principal of
comparison i.e. like with like comparison during the
examination of the signatures and arrived to opinion as
per Ex.P.114 and also gave detailed reasons for his
opinion. He further states that in his opinion, the person
who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and
marked as S1 to S6 also wrote the red enclosed
signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q3 and
Q5 to Q24.
154 C.C.No.17622/2017
310. According to the evidence of P.W.36, the
person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped
and marked as S1 to S6 also wrote the red enclosed
signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q3 and
Q5 to Q24.
311. Ex.P-113 is the specimen signatures of
accused No.2 taken by the investigating officer and the
specimen signatures of accused No. 2 is marked as S1 to
S6.
312. P.W.35 – Sri. S. Subramanya Investigating
Officer deposed in his evidence that he has collected
Ex.P.113 specimen signature of accused No.2 and
marked it as S1 to S6 and sent to CFSL for expert
opinion.
313. As discussed above, Q5 and Q6 marked in
Ex.P.5(o) are the signatures of the accused No.2 while
making attestation which were compared and examined
with the specimen signatures of accused No.2 marked in
S1 to S6 by the P.W.36 expert and as per his opinion, the
person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped
and marked as S1 to S6 also wrote the red enclosed
signatures similarly stamped and marked Q5 and 6.
Hence, as per the evidence of P.W.36, accused No.2
affixed the signatures marked as Q5 and Q6 in Ex.P.5(o).
155 C.C.No.17622/2017
314. In view of the above discussion, this Court is
of the opinion that the prosecution has proved that the
accused No.2 and 3 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy
have created the Ex.P.5 (o) Land Conversion Order and it
was self attested by the accused No.2 and submitted to
the visiting team members during the inspection.
315. As per the prosecution case, in pursuance of
criminal conspiracy and in order to cheat the NCTE,
accused No.2 and 3 forged and created Building
Completion Certificate dated 25.08.2015 to falsely show
that sufficient building were available at the land at
Sy.No.241/2, Akuledu village to run the college and the
said document was issued by Mandal Engineering
Office, Singanamala Mandal Ananthapura district and on
the instruction of accused No.3, the accused No.2 got the
seal i.e. rubber stamp in the name of Mandal
Engineering officer, Singanamala Mandal made and
affixed the same on the Building Completion Certificate
and thereby making and possessing counterfeit seal with
intention to commit forgery and said document
submitted by accused No.2 and 3 to the Visiting Team as
it is a genuine document.
316. As discussed above, the accused No.2 who is
the authorized signatory of the applications submitted to
the SRC-NCTE for grant of recognition to run B.Ed., and
D.El.Ed., courses under accused No.1 institution,
156 C.C.No.17622/2017
mentioned in his original letters marked in Ex.P.3 and 5
which were received by the SRC-NCTE on 18.06.2015
that he submitted copy of Building Completion
Certificate by Government Engineer at Sl.No.9 of
enclosures. But the said Building Completion Certificate
is not available in Ex.P.1, 2 and 4 documents which was
said to be submitted by the accused No.2. Further, as
discussed above, at the time of scrutiny of the
applications submitted by the accused No.2, it is
mentioned as Building Completion Certificate is not
submitted. Hence, the SRC in its 296 th meeting taken a
decision that Building Completion Certificate to be
submitted and ask visiting team to obtain relevant land
and building documents. Further, in Ex.P.3 and 5
original note sheets, it is mentioned that the Building
Completion Certificate submitted along with visiting
team report and remarks made that BCC dated
25.08.2015 the built-up area 10304 is submitted.
317. P.W.3 who is the member of visiting team in
his evidence states that during their visit, the office
bearers of accused No.1 society namely accused No.3
and others have given building plan, property documents
and the said documents submitted by the office bearers
are attested by themselves.
157 C.C.No.17622/2017
318. In Ex.P.5 (g) visiting team report, it is clearly
mentioned in Sl.No.2 details as per Land documents that
Building Completion Certificate dated 26.08.2015 issued
by Mandal Engineering Officer Y. Sreedhara, Asst.
Engineer, Singanamala. Further in this document at
page 15 also the same details mentioned in respect to
Building Completion Certificate.
319. Ex.P-5(n) is the self attested copy of the
building completion certificate dated 25.08.2015 wherein
the original seal of accused No. 1 society and original
signature of accused No. 2 is affixed. It reveals that date
of inspection by the Engineer is kept blank. Further
owner of the land and building is mentioned as Sree
Sarada Educational Rural Development and Animal
Welfare Society, Akuledu village and Post, Singanamala
Mandal, Anantapuram District. Further, location with
survey Number is mentioned as 241/2, Akuledu village
and purpose of the building is being used mentioned as
Education purpose. Further, in column No. 10 the
details of construction of building mentioned as under:
Area Roofing
Ground A B R.C.C
floor 2576 9600
First floor 2576 9600 R.C.C
Second 2576 R.C.C
floor
Third floor 2576 R.C.C
158 C.C.No.17622/2017
320. Further in Ex.P-5(n) Building Completion
Certificate, the signature of the Mandal Engineering
Officer, M.P Singanamala is affixed with seal and name
of the Engineer mentioned as Y. Sreedhar, Designation:
Assistant Executive Engineer, Office address:
Singanamala (M) (Po), Anantapur (Dist), A.P – 515731.
321. According to the evidence of P.W.3, the
property documents which were handed over to the
visiting team during the visit and inspection were self
attested by the office bearers of the accused No.1
institution. On perusal of Ex.P.5 (n) document, it is self
attested by the accused No.2. Further, the signatures of
the accused No.2 in Ex.P.5 (n) also marked as Q8.
Further the seal of the Mandal Engineering Officer
marked as Q30. Hence, in view of above oral and
documentary evidence, it clearly shows that Ex.P.5 (n)
attested copy of the Building Completion Certificate
dated 25.08.2015 has been submitted to the visiting
team by the accused No.3 and other office bearers of
accused No.1 institution.
322. P.W.4 – Sri. K. Sreedhar Rao, the then Mandal
Engineer Officer, Singanamala, stated in his evidence
that from year 2010 to 2015, he was working as Mandal
Engineer Officer in Singnamala and as Mandal Engineer,
his duties and responsibilities were to execute the
159 C.C.No.17622/2017
mandal works and Panchayath Raj civil works and apart
from this, his work was to issue the building completion
certificate and soundness certificate in respect of schools
and the roads and buildings department used to issue
the building completion certificate in respect of Junior
Colleges.
323. P.W.4 further states that Ex.P-5 (n) building
completion certificate dated 25.08.2015 purportedly
issued by Mandal Engineering Office, MP, Singanamala
is not issued from their office and the seal affixed on
Ex.P-5(n) is not belongs to their office and the signature
found on Ex.P-5(n) is not his signature. He further
states that the name of the engineer is mentioned Y.
Sridhar, however, his name is K. Sridhar Rao.
324. P.W.4 further states that Ex.P.3 (d) Soundness
certificate dated 26.03.2015, purportedly issued by
Mandal Engineering Officer, MP, Singanamala is not
issued by their office and the seal affixed on Ex.P-3(d) is
not belongs to their office and the signature found on the
Ex.P-3(d) is not his signature.
325. P.W.4 further states that Ex.P.27 attested
copies of Soundness Certificate issued in the name of
Sharadha Vidhyanikethana English Medium Elementary
School on 26.03.2015 and register of soundness
certificate maintained by their office and Ex.P-27 bears
160 C.C.No.17622/2017
his signature as Ex.P-27(a) and in Ex.P-27(d) they have
mentioned the details of soundness certificate issued
from their office.
326. P.W.4 was subjected cross-examination by the
Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 wherein he admits
that from 2010 to 21.08.2015, he worked Singanamala
Mandal. He further states that he does not know whether
there is any guidelines issued by Andhra Pradesh
Government to issue the building completion certificate
and soundness certificate. He denied the suggestion
made by the counsel that he does not know the
procedure how to issue the building completion
certificate and soundness certificate. He states that there
is no format to issue the building completion certificate
and soundness certificate and as per the procedure,
Mandal Engineering Officer is the competent person to
issue the building completion certificate and soundness
certificate and in order to show that no order or circular
are issued to their office.
327. P.W.4 further states that after receipt of the
application from the concerned party, they used to enter
the same in their register and there was no hurdle for
him to give statement before the CBI regarding the entry
made by him regarding the receipt of application
submitted for issuance of building completion certificate
and soundness certificate. He further states that he has
161 C.C.No.17622/2017
seen the proforma issued by the Government of Andhra
Pradesh in respect of maintenance of entry register and
certificate issuance register. He admits that in Ex.P-27,
there is no mention as to the proforma details and rules.
He further admits that he has not seen the original of
Ex.P-5(n). It is pertinent to note that Ex.P.5(n) submitted
by the accused No. 2 who made self attestetion on it and
he has to say about original of the same. He further
states that he does not know how many pages were there
in Ex.P-27, when he seen the document lastly. He
further states that before issuing the soundness
certificate, he used to conduct spot inspection. He denied
the suggestions made to him that Public Prosecutor have
tutted him to depose before this court and his office not
maintained original register with regard to the entry of
the application and issuance register.
328. According to the evidence of P.W.4, Ex.P.5 (n)
and Ex.P.3 (d) not issued by him and the signature
found on Ex.P.5 (n) and Ex.P.3 (d) not belongs to him
and the seal affixed on Ex.P.5 (n) and Ex.P.3 (d) not
belongs to their office and his name is K. Sridhar Rao,
but the name of the Engineer mentioned in Ex.P.5 (n) is
Y. Sridhar. Though P.W.4 cross examined by the Ld.
Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2, nothing has been
elicited to show that Ex.P.5 (n) and Ex.P.3 (d) issued by
him and signatures found on the said documents
162 C.C.No.17622/2017
belongs to him and the seal affixed on said documents
belongs to their office. Hence, in view of the evidence of
P.W.4, Ex.P.5 (n) Building Completion Certificate was not
issued by Mandal Engineering Office, Singanamala or by
P.W.4.
329. P.W.7 – Sri. V. Ashok kumar, Asst. Executive
Engineer, the Road and Building Departments, Andhra
Pradesh deposed in his evidence that in the year 2012,
he joined to the Road and Building Departments, Govt.
of Andhra Pradesh as Assistant Executive Engineer and
as an Assistant Executive Engineer, his duties were to
execute the Roads and Buildings and the Road and
Building of Ananthapura was headed by Superintending
Engineer and it had three sub divisions namely
Thadapatri, Gothi and Ananathapura. He further states
that Akuledu of Siganamala falls under the jurisdiction
of Thadaptri Sub Division and the sub division of
Thadapatri was headed by him and there was no
Assistant Executive Engineer in the name of Y. Sridhar
in their Sub Division. He further states that Ex.P-5(n)
building completion certificate was not issued from their
office and the signature found on the Ex.P-5(n) is not
belongs to him and the seal also not belongs to their
office and during his tenure, he has not issued any
building completion certificate and in the top of Ex.P-5(n)
it is mentioned as Government of Andhara Pradesh,
163 C.C.No.17622/2017
Roads and Building Department and in the bottom, it is
mentioned as Mandal Engineering Officer, Singanamala.
330. P.W.7 further states that Ex.P-3(d) soundness
certificate purportedly issued by their office and it is not
at all issued by his office and the seal affixed on Ex.P-
3(d) not belongs to their office and signature found on
Ex.P-3(d) neither belongs to him nor any of their officers.
He further states that Ex.P.35 letter dated 25.10.2016
written by Y.R. Subramanyam, Superintending Engineer,
RMD, Ananathapura addressed to the I.O., CBI for
clarification as to issuing of said building completion
certificate and Ex.P.36 letter dated 25.10.2016 of
Subramanyam Superintending Engineer, RMD,
Ananathapura regarding non issue of building
completion certificate to Sri Sharadha Educational
Society and Ex.P-35 shows that their department had
not issued any building completion certificate to Sri
Sharadha Educational Society.
331. P.W.7 was subjected to cross examination by
the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 wherein he
states that he was working at Singanamala from 2012 to
2018 and Subramanyam was the Superintending
Engineer at that time and he had met Superintending
Engineer Subramanyam during his tenure. He further
states that he has not seen the signature of
164 C.C.No.17622/2017
Subramanyam while he signing in Ex.P-35. He admits
that Subramanyam is the right person to say whether
signature found on Ex.P-35 & Ex.P-36 are his signatures
and if any document issued from their office, they will
mention the same in their register and he has not given
the said register to CBI.
332. In view of the above evidence of P.W.7, Ex.P.5
(n) and Ex.P.3 (d) not issued by their office and
signatures found on the said documents not belongs to
him or their officers and the seal found on the said
documents not belongs to their office. It is elicited in the
cross-examination of P.W.7 that they have mentioned the
documents issued from their office in a register and the
said register not given to the CBI. It is pertinent to note
that if any document issued, then it was mentioned in
the register. According to the P.W.7, he or his officer not
at all issued Ex.P.5 (n) and Ex.P.3 (d) documents to the
accused No.1 institution. Then, the question of
mentioning the details of Ex.P.5 (n) and Ex.P.3 (d) in the
register does not arise at all. Hence, there is no
substance in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for
accused No.1 and 2.
333. It is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.7
that he has not seen the signature of Subramanyam
Superintendent Engineer while he signing in Ex.P.35 and
165 C.C.No.17622/2017
the said Subramanyam is the right person to say about
signatures found on Ex.P.35 and Ex.P.36.
334. In view of Section 47 of Indian Evidence Act,
the opinion of any person acquainted with the
handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be
written or signed that it was or was not written or signed
by that person, is a relevant fact.
335. In this case, P.W.7 who was the Asst.
Executive Engineer has identified the signature of
Superintendent Engineer by name Subramanyam on
Ex.P.35 and 36. Though P.W.7 has not seen the Sri.
Subrmanyam signing in Ex.P.35 and 36, but he was the
officer working under Subramanyam at the relevant
point of time who acquainted with the signature of
Subramanyam. Hence, P.W.7 has identified the
signatures of Subramanyam. Hence, the opinion of P.W.7
who acquainted with the signature of Subramanyam is
relevant fact to show that the signatures on Ex.P.35 and
Ex.P.36 pertaining to the Subramanyam. Hence, there is
no substance in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the
accused No.1 and 2.
336. Ex.P-35 is the letter dated 25.10.2016 written
by Superintending Engineer Sri. Y.R Subramanyam to
the CBI for deputation of PW-7 to produce the
166 C.C.No.17622/2017
documents and reply also furnished to the clarification
sought by the Investigating Officer as under:
Sl. Clarification asked by CBI Reply furnished by
No Investigation Officer Roads and Buildings
.
1. Whether any building No completion certificate
completion certificate dated Dt: 25-08-2015 was
25.08.2015 was issued by issued by (R&B)
you to Sree Sarada Department officials, for
Educational Rural Sree Sarada
Development & Animal Educational Rural
Welfare Society, Akuledu Development & Animal
village and Post, Welfare Society,
Singanamala (M) Akuledu village and
Anantapuramu Dist. Post, Singanamala (M)
Anantapuramu Dist.
2. Whether any building No completion certificate
completion certificate of with any other date was
any other date was issued issued by (R&B)
by you to Sree Sarada Department officials for
Educational Rural Sree Sarada
Development & Animal Educational Rural
Welfare Society, Akuledu Development & Animal
village and Post, Welfare Society,
Singanamala (M) Akuledu village and
Anantapuramu Dist. Post, Singanamala (M)
Anantapuramu Dist.
3. Whether the enclosed Enclosed Building
Building Completion Completion Certificate
Certificate was issued by was not issued by Roads
you to Sree Sarada and Buildings
Educational Rural Department, hence it is
Development & Animal bogus one, since the
Welfare Society, Akuledu letter head was named
village and Post, as “Government of
Singanamala (M) Andhra Pradesh” Roads
Anantapuramu Dist. and Building
167 C.C.No.17622/2017Department and below
the signature the
designation was
mentioned as Mandal
Engineering Officer,
M.P. Singanamala.
337. Ex.P-36 is the letter dated 25.10.2016 written
by the Y.R Subramanyam, Superintending Engineer
(R&B), Anantapuramu, Andhra Pradesh wherein he
confirmed as under:
“Roads and Buildings Department,
Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Anantapuramu has not issued any Building
Completion Certificate of any date to Sree
Sarada Educational Rural Development &
Animal Welfare Society, Akuledu village,
Anantapuramu District, Andhra Pradesh and
infact for last five years over department has
not issued any Building Completion
Certificate to anyone and the Building
Completion Certificate sent along with your
notice is bogus and because at the bottom it
mentioned that the signature & designation
as Mandal Engineer Officer, M.P.
Singanamala which is a Mandal Office not
connected to their Department and
Anantapuramu Roads & Buildings
Department has a Sub-Division at Tadipatri
which has jurisdiction over Akuledu village,
Sinaganamala M.P and there are three
Assistant Executive Engineers namely Sri. V.
Ashok Kumar, Sri. T. Madhusudhan and Sri.
T. Ramamurthy and there is no body in the
name of Sri. Y. Sreedhar working in Tadipatri
Sub-Division, Roads and Buildings
Department”.
168 C.C.No.17622/2017
338. In view of Ex.P.35 letter written by Sri. Y.R.
Subramanyam, Superintendent Engineer (R and B),
Ananthapuramu, no completion certificate dated
25.08.2015 was issued by their officials for accused No.1
institution. According to Ex.P.36 letter written by Sri.
Y.R. Subramanyam, Superintendent Engineer (R and B),
Ananthapuramu, Andhra Pradesh wherein he clearly
states that the Roads and Buildings Department,
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Anantapuramu has not
issued any Building Completion Certificate of any date to
Sree Sarada Educational Rural Development & Animal
Welfare Society, Akuledu village, Anantapuramu
District, Andhra Pradesh and in fact for last five years
their department has not issued any Building
Completion Certificate to anyone and the Building
Completion Certificate sent along with notice is bogus
and because at the bottom it mentioned that the
signature & designation as Mandal Engineer Officer,
M.P. Singanamala which is a Mandal Office not
connected to their Department and Anantapuramu
Roads & Buildings Department has a Sub-Division at
Tadipatri which has jurisdiction over Akuledu village,
Sinaganamala M.P and there are three Assistant
Executive Engineers namely Sri. V. Ashok Kumar, Sri. T.
Madhusudhan and Sri. T. Ramamurthy and there is no
body in the name of Sri. Y. Sreedhar working in Tadipatri
Sub-Division, Roads and Buildings Department.
169 C.C.No.17622/2017
339. In view of above evidence of P.W.7 and also
Ex.P.35 and Ex.P.36 letters, Ex.P.5 (n) Building
Completion Certificate was not issued by the Roads and
Buildings Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh.
340. P.W.11 – Sri. Gangadhar P., the then Mandal
Executive Engineer in his evidence states that he has
been working as Mandal Executive Engineer Officer at
MPT since 25.08.2015 and his duties were execution of
mandal works and panchayath raj civil works. He further
states that he has not issued Ex.P-5(n) building
completion certificate dated 25.08.2015 of Govt. of
Andhra Pradesh, Roads and Building Department and
the signature found in Ex.P-5(n) is not of his signature
and the seal also does not belongs to their office.
341. P.W.11 was subjected to cross examination by
the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 wherein he
states that he does not know whether soundness
certificate was issued from their office on 26.03.2015
and he has not given any statement before the CBI in
respect of soundness certificate as per Ex.D.1 and he
further admits that he has not given any statement
before the CBI. Though P.W.11 denied his statement in
Ex.D.1 made before CBI, but the said statement in
respect to issuance of soundness certificate in Ex.P.27.
170 C.C.No.17622/2017
342. P.W.11 specifically stated that he has not
issued Ex.P.5 (n) Building Completion Certificate and it
does not contain his signature and the seal found on the
said certificate not belongs to their office. But, there is no
cross-examination done by the Ld. Counsel for accused
No.1 and 2 in this regard. Hence, according to the
evidence of P.W.11 also, Ex.P.5 (n) Building Completion
Certificate was not issued by the Mandal Executive
Engineer Office and it does not contain the signature of
P.W.11 and the seal found on the said certificate not
belongs to said office.
343. It is pertinent to note that on perusal of Ex.P.5
(n) Building Completion Certificate, in the letter heading
it is mentioned that ‘GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH ROADS & BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT’ and in
the bottom of the said certificate the seal affixed as
‘Mandal Engineering Officer M P Singanamala’. As per
Ex.P.36 letter of the Superintending Engineer, Mandal
Office not connected to Roads and Buildings
Department. In view of the above oral evidence of P.W.4,
7 and 11 and documentary evidence in Ex.P.5 (n),
Ex.P.35 and Ex.P.36 clearly established that Ex.P.5 (n)
Building Completion Certificate not issued either by the
‘GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ROADS &
BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT’ or Mandal Engineering
Officer M P P Singanamala.
171 C.C.No.17622/2017
344. P.W.36 Sri. P. Venugopala Rao, the then Asst.
Director and Scientist ‘C’ at CFSL, Hyderabad deposed in
his evidence that the person who wrote the blue enclosed
signatures stamped and marked as S1 to S6 also wrote
the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and
marked Q1 to Q3 and Q5 to Q24.
345. Ex.P-113 is the specimen signatures of
accused No.2 taken by the investigating officer and the
specimen signatures of accused No. 2 is marked as S1 to
S6.
346. P.W.35 – Sri. S. Subramanya Investigating
Officer deposed in his evidence that he has collected
Ex.P.113 specimen signature of accused No.2 and
marked it as S1 to S6 and sent to CFSL for expert
opinion.
347. As discussed above, Q8 is the disputed
signature of the accused No.2 in Ex.P.5 (n) which was
compared and examined with the specimen signatures of
accused No.2 marked in S1 to S6 by the P.W.36 expert
and as per his opinion, the person who wrote the blue
enclosed signatures stamped and marked as S1 to S6
also wrote the red enclosed signature similarly stamped
and marked Q8. Hence, as per the evidence of P.W.36,
accused No.2 affixed the signature marked as Q8 in
Ex.P.5 (n).
172 C.C.No.17622/2017
348. Further, P.W.4 who was working as Mandal
Engineering Officer in Singanamala at the relevant point
of time specifically states that the seal affixed on
Ex.P.5(n) not belongs to their office. Further, P.W.7 and
P.W.11 also in their evidence specifically deposed that
the seal affixed on Ex.P.5(n) certificate not belongs to
their office.
349. P.W.35 Investigating Officer in his evidence
states that M.O.5 is fake rubber stamp in the name of
Mandal Engineering Officer, M P Singanamala and
during the search conducted in the premises of accused
No.1’s Institution, the said rubber stamp was seized.
Further he states that he collected relevant genuine
rubber stamp from concerned authority as M.O.8.
Further, P.W.30 and 32 also deposed in their evidence
regarding seizer of said M.O.5 rubber stamp from the
accused No. 1 Institution during search conducted by
CBI.
350. Ex.P-110 is the Receipt Memo dated
19.10.2016 in respect to production of a Rubber Stamp
with impressions ‘MANDAL ENGINEERING OFFICER
M.P.P. SINGANAMALA’ – 1 Rubber Stamp and attested
copy of the Register of Soundness Certificate of
Singanamala (Mandal) for the date 20.03.2015 along
with cover page titled Issued of Soundness Certificate-
Mandal Praja Parishad, Singanamala(M)-2 sheets by the
173 C.C.No.17622/2017
PW-11 to the Investigating Officer. The rubber stamp
impression was marked as S18.
351. On perusal of seal affixed on Ex.P.5(n)
Building Completion Certificate, it reveals that ‘Mandal
Engineering Officer M P Singanamala’ is mentioned. On
perusal of M.O.8 seal, it reveals that ‘MANDAL
ENGINEERING OFFICER M.P.P. SINGANAMALA’ is
mentioned. Hence, it appears that there is a difference in
both seal impressions. However, P.W.36 given his
opinion that seal impression marked as Q30 is in the
form of photo-static reproduction and it do not afford
suitable data for comparison and its original needed.
Admittedly, Ex.P5(n) is attested copy of the building
completion certificate, hence it is not compared by
P.W.36.
352. In view of the above discussion, this Court is
of the opinion that the prosecution has proved that the
accused No.2 and 3 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy
created the Ex.P.5 (n) attested copy of Building
Completion Certificate dated 25.08.2015 and it was self
attested by the accused No.2 and submitted to the
visiting team members during the inspection and used
the said forged document as genuine document.
353. As per the prosecution case, in pursuance of
criminal conspiracy hatched by accused No.2 and 3,
174 C.C.No.17622/2017
accused No.3 approached the Sri. B. Thirupalu, Engineer
and proprietor of M/s Apex Constructions, Ananthapura
and obtained the building plan in the name of Sree
Sarada D.El.Ed., and B.Ed., college at Sy.No.241/2
Akuledu Village, Ananthapur district showing ground
floor plus three floors, whereas the available buildings in
the said survey number had only ground floor plus first
floor.
354. Further, as per the prosecution case, the
accused No.2 and 3 also intentionally misrepresented the
facts by showing that multipurpose hall with seating
capacity of 200 persons and a dais with a total area of
2,234.50 square feet, a Library cum resource center with
an area of 1,580.50 square feet and ICT resource center
of 2,234.50 square feet etc., are available, whereas the
entire buildings contained a total of eight rooms, apart
from the office cum correspondent room. The forged
building plan showed a total built up area of 27,536.95
square feet (2,558.26 square meter), whereas the actual
available buildings measured only a total built up area of
272.18 square meter (2,930 square feet), including the
temporary shed of 62.37 square meter (671 square feet).
355. As per the prosecution case, accused No.2 and
3 with the fraudulent and dishonest intention of
circumventing the deficiencies pointed out by the
175 C.C.No.17622/2017
SRC/NCTE, and in pursuance of criminal conspiracy to
somehow obtain the formal recognition, accused No.3
obtained another false building plan from Sri. B.
Thirupalu, Engineer and Proprietor, M/s Apex
Constructions, Ananthapur District showing a total built
up area of 3,281 square meter (35,324.87 square feet),
whereas the actual buildings had a total built- up area of
272.18 square meter (2,930 square feet), including the
temporary shed of 62.37 square meter (671 square feet),
which is grossly inadequate in terms of the NCTE
Regulations, 2014.
356. In view of the discussion made in the above,
the prosecution has established that Ex.P.5 (f) attested
copy of building plan prepared by the P.W.9 was
submitted by accused No.3 to the visiting team.
357. P.W.9 – Sri. Thirupalu B. consulting civil
Engineer and proprietor of M/s Apex Constructions,
Ananthapur has specifically deposed that on the
instruction of accused No.3 he has prepared Ex.P.5 (f)
and (d) building plans and it bears his signatures and
his office seal. He further states that accused No.3 told
him that this is an emergent case and he want plan
urgently as it is a formal thing to get the permission and
he will complete the building within one year, hence, he
prepared the building plan in his office without visiting
the spot.
176 C.C.No.17622/2017
358. P.W.9 further states that as per his building
plan, there are two blocks “A” block is consisting of four
floor and “B” floor consisting of two floors and as per his
plan, the total corporate block “A” comprising ground + 3
floors is 9.273 Sq. feet and the total built up area in the
building plan as per Ex.P-5(f) is 27.536.93 square feet
and as per Ex.P-5(d) the total built up area is 35.324.87
square feet.
359. P.W.9 further states that after receiving notice
from CBI, he went to the site i.e., at Sy.No.241/2 of
Akuledu Village and he found that only one building was
in existence and there was only one block was existing in
the said building and it was not completed at that time
and Ex.P.39 the original building plan prepared by him
in respect of building at Sy.No.241/2 of Akuledu Village.
He further states that CBI officer has shown Ex.P.19 to
26 photographs to him and in Ex.P-20 photograph,
accused No.3 is seen in the right side and accused No.3
paid him fees of Rs.5,000/- for preparing the building
plan. He further identified the accused No.3 in videos
containing in Ex.P.20 (a) and (b) CDs which were played
in the Open Court.
360. Though P.W.9 was subjected to cross-
examination at length by the Ld. Counsel for accused
No.1 and 2, nothing has been elicited to discredit his
version.
177 C.C.No.17622/2017
361. P.W.9 was subjected to cross-examination by
the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.3 wherein he states
that he has not produced the license to run M/s Apex
Constructions before the Court and accused No. 3 is his
friend and he was working as Teacher. He further states
that he does not know where the accused No. 3 was
working and he does not know about the native place of
the accused No. 3. Further, he states that he does not
know the residential address and School address of
accused No. 3. He further states that he had contact
number of accused No.3, but now he does not remember
the same.
362. Though it is elicited in the cross-examination
of P.W.9 that he has not produced the license to run the
firm, but in Ex.P.5 (f), (d) and Ex.P.39 building plans, the
name and seal of the firm of the P.W.9 is affixed with his
signature and the same was identified by the P.W.9.
Moreover, P.W.9 is the author of these building plans.
Further, nothing has been elicited in his cross-
examination to show that the said firm was not in
existence or P.W.9 was not proprietor of the said firm.
Though, license was not produced before the Court, but
the oral evidence of P.W.9 and 10 and also Ex.P.5 (f), (d)
and Ex.P.39 building plans clearly shows that the said
178 C.C.No.17622/2017
building plans were issued by the P.W.9. Hence, there is
substance in the contention of the accused No.3.
363. Further, P.W.9 admitted in his cross-
examination that his profession and profession of
accused No.3 are different and as a professionalist, he
has to visit the spot to prepare the building plan. He
further states that he prepared the building plan due to
friendship. Further, he admits that he is keeping the
accounts in respect to fees received for doing work and
he has not issued any receipt regarding fees of
Rs.5,000/- collected by accused No. 3. He further states
that the said Rs.5,000/- fee was not taken to the firm
account, but he received the cash from accused No. 3
and he does not know about whether accused No. 3 is
concerned with Sharada Education Society.
364. Though it is elicited in the cross-examination
of P.W.9 that he has to visit the spot to prepare the
building plan as a professionalist, but he specifically
states that he has done the said work due to friendship
with accused No.3. Further, it is elicited that P.W.9 does
not know the residential and school address of the
P.W.3, but he states that he had contact number of
accused No.3.
365. P.W.9 further states that he does not know
about who has taken the Ex.P-19 to Ex.P-26
179 C.C.No.17622/2017
photographs and who has produced it and no certificate
shown to him along with said photographs and the said
photographs and CDs were not taken in his presence.
366. As discussed above, Ex.P.19 to 26
photographs taken by the office bearers of the accused
No.1 society and photographs handed over to the P.W.3,
then the primary evidence i.e. negative or original
memory card is appears to be in the possession and
power of the accused persons against whom these
photographs sought to be proved. Hence, the secondary
evidence of the contents of the document is admissible
as per Section 65 (a) of the Evidence Act. Moreover,
P.W.9 only identified the accused No.3 in the said
photographs. Hence, there is no substance in the
contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and
2.
367. Further, P.W.9 is the author of the Ex.P.5(f)
and Ex.P.39/Ex.P.5(d) building plans who identified the
said documents and his signatures and his office seal on
the same. Further, as per the evidence of P.W.9, he
visited the site at Sy.No.241/2 of Akuledu village and
found existing of only one building and one block in the
said building which was also incomplete. Hence, nothing
has been elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.9 to
discredit his version.
180 C.C.No.17622/2017
368. P.W.10 – Sri. Suryanarayana E., Auto CAD
Operator, Ananthapuram in his evidence deposed that
M/s Apex Constructions belongs to P.W.9 and he joined
the said firm in the year 2011 as auto CAD operator and
getting the salary of Rs.15,000/- per month and he used
to draw the designs and plans for residential, commercial
and industrial buildings. He further states that upon the
instruction of P.W.9, he prepared Ex.P.5 (d) and (f) and
Ex.P.39 building plans pertaining to Sree Sarada B.Ed.,
college and in that document his name mentioned as E.
Suri. He further states that the person who came to the
office had shown some photographs and it was night,
they could not visit the site and after lapse of three
years, he has visited to the site situated at Akuledu
Village and at that time, he has noticed one building,
which was partially completed and there were two floors
constructed, consisting of ground and first floor. He
further identified the accused No.3 in Ex.P.20
photograph and videos in Ex.P.20 (a) and (b) CDs. He
further states the accused No.3 came to the office for
getting the building plan.
369. Ex.P-101 is the Receipt Memo dated
05.05.2017 and Site Plan and Building Plan of Sree
Sarada B.Ed and D.Ed college, Sy. No. 241/2 of Akuledu
village and these documents were submitted by PW-10
181 C.C.No.17622/2017
Sri. T. Suryanarayana, the CAD Operator of M/s Apex
Constructions to Investigating Officer.
370. P.W.10 was subjected to cross-examination by
the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 wherein he
states that he was working under P.W.9 since 2011. He
admits that he has to peruse the land documents to
prepare the building plan and in respect of plan in Ex.P-
5(f) & (b) and Ex.P-39 nobody instructed him to prepare
building plan and his signature is not found on Ex.P-39
to show that he has prepared the said document and he
does not have qualification to prepare the building plan.
He further admits that he has not visited to the Akuledu
Village before three years and CBI officer has not shown
any documents before visiting to the site and he does not
know at Akuledu Village which place he has visited.
371. P.W.10 was subjected to cross-examination by
the Ld. Counsel for accused No.3 wherein he states that
he has not signed on Ex.P.5 (d) and (f) building plans
pertaining to Sri Sarada Education College and he has
not visited the spot before preparing the plan and in
Ex.P.26, the person who are in white dress is Mr.
Obulapathy and he does not know who took the
photographs in Ex.P.19 to 26 and in which occasion the
photographs were taken and he has seen the
photographs at the first time before this court. He
further states he does not know where was the original
182 C.C.No.17622/2017
films or Memory Card of Ex.P.19 to 26 and in Ex.P.20,
the first person standing in photographs is look like Mr.
Obulapathy and in Ex.P.22, the person sitting with white
dress is Mr. Obulapathy and in Ex.P.24, the second
persons standing from left side is Mr. Obulapathy and at
the first time he has seen the videographs before this
court in Ex.P.20 and he does not know who has
videographed the videos in CD in Ex.P.20. He further
states that he does not know how Mr. Obulapathy has
connected to Sarada Educational Society and he does
not have any authorized qualification to prepare the
plans. He further admits that, in Ex.P.19 to 26, the land
and building are not seen and he did not meet Mr.
Obulapathy personally.
372. As per the above elicitation made in the cross-
examination of P.W.10 that he has no qualification to
prepare the building plans. According to the evidence of
P.W.10, he was working under P.W.9 as auto CAD
operator and his job was to draw the designs and plans
for the buildings and based upon the building plans, he
used to prepare the designs. It is pertinent to note that
P.W.9 is the proprietor of the M/s Apex constructions
who was the consulting civil engineer and he has
prepared the plan and affixed his signature and office
seal on the building plans and P.W.10 was working
under the P.W.9. Hence, the job of the P.W.10 was to
183 C.C.No.17622/2017
prepare the designs based upon the building plans under
the instructions of P.W.9 who was the qualified engineer.
Hence, though P.W.10 was not qualified to prepare the
plans but his work has to prepare the designs based on
the building plans upon the instructions of P.W.9.
Hence, there is no substance in the contention of the Ld.
Counsel for the accused persons.
373. Further, it is elicited in the cross-examination
of P.W.10 that his signature is not fund on Ex.P.39
building plan. It is pertinent to note that P.W.10 is only
assistant to the P.W.9 and in Ex.P.5 (f) building plan, the
name of P.W.9 as B. Thirupal and P.W.10 as E. Suri is
mentioned as they have drawn the building plan. As
discussed above, P.W.10 is not the proprietor of the firm
or qualified civil engineer to affix his signature on the
building plan and he is only assistant to the P.W.9.
Hence, the signature of the P.W.10 is not found in the
building plans.
374. It is elicited in the cross-examination of
P.W.10 that he has not visited the site before 3 years. It
is pertinent to note that as per the evidence of P.W.9 and
10 itself, they have not visited the site before preparing
the building plans. Hence, the question of visiting the
Akuledu village before 3 years not arise at all. Further, it
is elicited that in the cross-examination of P.W.10 that
he has not met accused No.3 personally. As per the
184 C.C.No.17622/2017
evidence of P.W.10, accused No.3 came to their office and
instructed the P.W.9 to prepare the building plan. Hence,
accused No.3 did not meet the P.W.10 personally and not
instructed him to prepare the plan. As discussed above,
P.W.10 prepared the designs based upon the building
plan on the instruction of P.W.9. Hence, the question of
meeting P.W.10 personally by the accused No.3 does not
arise.
375. As discussed above, Ex.P.19 to 26
photographs taken by the office bearers of the accused
No.1 society and photographs handed over to the P.W.3,
then the primary evidence i.e. negative or original
memory card is appears to be in the possession and
power of the accused persons against whom these
photographs sought to be proved. Hence, the secondary
evidence of the contents of the document is admissible
as per Section 65 (a) of the Evidence Act. Moreover,
P.W.10 only identified the accused No.3 in the said
photographs and videos in CDs. Hence, there is no
substance in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the
accused persons.
376. As per the chief examination of P.W.10, after
lapse of 3 years he visited to the site situated at Akuledu
village and noticed one partially completed building
which consist of ground and first floor. In his cross-
examination, he admits that he does not know at
185 C.C.No.17622/2017
Akuledu village which place he has visited. But nothing
has been elicited to show that he has not visited to the
site situated at Akuledu village after lapse of 3 years.
Though P.W.10 unable to depose that which place he has
visited at Akuledu village, but he clearly states that he
has visited the site situated at Akuledu village after lapse
of 3 years and noticed one partially completed building
consisting of ground and first floor.
377. In view of the above discussion, P.W.9 and 10
prepared the Ex.P.5(f) and Ex.P.39/Ex.P5(d) building
plans on the instructions of accused No.3 without
visiting the site of accused No.1 institution and at the
time of investigation by the CBI, they visited the site and
found existing of partially completed one building.
Though P.W.10 unable to state the exact place, but
P.W.9 specifically states that he visited the site at
Sy.No.241/2 of Akuledu village. Hence, it shows that
P.W.9 and 10 prepared the Ex.P.5(f) and
Ex.P.39/Ex.P.5(d) building plans without visiting the site
on the instruction of accused No.3.
378. As per discussion made above, the
prosecution has established that the accused No.2 has
submitted the self attested copy of the building plan to
the NCTE along with applications to start D.El.Ed. and
B.Ed., courses and the said self attested copy of the
building plan is available in Ex.P.1 to 5 files along with
186 C.C.No.17622/2017
applications. Further, prosecution has established that
while scrutinizing the applications, the P.W.1 made the
remarks in original note sheets of Ex.P.3 and 5 that the
photo copy of the building plan is not approved by the
competent authority and the original blueprint of the
building plan is not submitted and thereafter P.W.2 also
made remarks in Ex.P.3 and 5 note sheets that building
plan not legible and approved and built-up area as per
building plan is inadequate for the 2 programs and
thereafter it was placed before the SRC-NCTE and the
SRC-NCTE taken the decision in its 296 th meeting that
to ask the visiting team to obtain relevant land and
building documents. Further, prosecution has
established that Ex.P.5 (f) building plan which was self
attested by the accused No.2 with the seal of accused
No.1 institution was submitted by the accused No.3 to
the P.W.3 and another visiting team member while
inspection of the accused No.1 institution.
379. Ex.P-5(f) is self attested copy of the building
plan. It reveals that the said building plan prepared by –
Sri. B. Thirupal and E. Suri. Further, it reveals that the
proposed buildings to run Sree Sarada B.Ed., and D.Ed.,
College in Sy.No.241/2 of Akuledu village belongs to
accused No.1 society is consisting of A and B blocks and
in A block, the ground floor total measurement 2404.82
square feet, first floor measuring 2155.79 square feet,
187 C.C.No.17622/2017
second floor measuring 2404.82 square feet and third
floor measuring of 2307.03 square feet and total carpet
area was 9273.06 square feet and in block B, the ground
floor total carpet area is 9088.25 square feet and first
floor total carpet area is 9175.62 square feet. Further, in
total block A carpet area is 9273.06 square feet and
block B carpet area is 18263.87 square feet and in total
27536.93 square feet. Hence, according to Ex.P.5 (f)
building plan, total 27536.93 square feet proposed
buildings to run the Sree Sarada B.Ed., and D.Ed.,
College.
380. On perusal of the self attested copy of the
building plan in Ex.P.1 to 5 files and Ex.P.5 (f) building
plan, it shows that the contents of both building plan
are one and the same.
381. As per the evidence of P.W.3 visiting team
member, according to Ex.P.5 (g) visiting team report,
built-up area was totally 7455 square feet and the office
bearers of accused No.1 society submitted that they are
going to complete in-completed structures and during
their visit, they found two floor constructed building, but
according to building plan, it should have been 3 floors.
382. On perusal of the Ex.P.5 (f) attested copy of
the building plan and attested copy of building plan
188 C.C.No.17622/2017
marked in Ex.P.1 to 5, the proposed building in A block
consisting of Ground floor plus 3 floors and in B block
consisting of Ground floor plus 2 floors. According to the
evidence of P.W.3 visiting team member, they found two
floor constructed building, but according to building
plan, it should have been 3 floors. Hence, at the time of
inspection of visiting team also, only one building
consisting of 2 floor was in existence in the accused No.1
society.
383. As discussed above, the prosecution has
established that P.W.1 has put up the note sheet in
Ex.P.3 and 5 that built-up area is inadequate for 2
programs according to the remarks of visiting team and
the building plan is not approved by the competent
authority and the same was placed before the SRC-NCTE
by the P.W.2 and the said SRC-NCTE in its 303 rd meeting
directed to issue show cause notice to the accused No.1
institution for compliance of deficiencies.
384. Further as discussed above, the prosecution
has established that after issuance of show cause notice,
the accused No.2 has written a letter dated 17.02.2016
marked as Ex.P.5 (c) to the Regional Director of NCTE
and submitted the Ex.P.5 (d) blue print of building plan
approved by the Panchayath Secretary, Akuledu village
to show that built-up area is adequate for running for
189 C.C.No.17622/2017
two programs and building plan is approved by the
concerned authority.
385. Ex.P-5 (c) is the original letter dated
17.02.2016 and it reveals that the accused No. 2 being a
Secretary of accused No. 1 Society has written a letter to
the Regional Director, NCTE, Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru
wherein he states that they are enclosing adequate proof
documents for the requirements (1). Built up area is
adequate for running and programs for B.Ed building ‘A’
block 17061.00 Sq. ft and for D.El.Ed ‘B’ block 18263.87
Sq.ft, (2). BP is approved by the concern authority which
Panchayath Secretary, (3). Asbestos roofing is removed.
Further, the enclosures mentioned as Blue Print(xerox),
Blue Print approved by the concerned authority and
original C.D.
386. Ex.P-5(d) is copy of the building plan and
Ex.P-39 is the original building plan which was approved
by the Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayath,
Singanamala (Mdl.). It reveals that the said building
plan prepared by PW-9 Sri. B. Thirupal. Further, it
contains the seal and signature of the Panchayath
Secretary, Akuledu village, Singanamala (Mdl.) and also
seal of the accused No. 1 Society and signature of the
accused No. 2.
190 C.C.No.17622/2017
387. As per Ex.P.39 original building plan and
Ex.P.5 (d) is copy of Ex.P.39 building plan reveals that
plan showing the details of existing buildings to run Sri
Sarada B.Ed., and D.Ed., College in Sy.No.241/2 of
Akuledu village belongs to accused No.1 society is
consisting of A and B blocks and in A block, the ground
floor total measurement 4278.00 square feet, first floor
measuring 4227.60 square feet, second floor measuring
4278.00 square feet and third floor measuring of
4278.00 square feet and total carpet area was 17061.00
square feet and in block B, the ground floor total carpet
area is 9088.25 square feet and first floor total carpet
area is 9175.62 square feet. Further, in total block A
carpet area is 17061.00 square feet and block B carpet
area is 18263.87 square feet and in total 35324.87
square feet. Hence, according to Ex.P.5 (d)/Ex.P.39
building plan, total 35324.87 square feet existing
buildings to run the Sree Sarada B.Ed., and D.Ed.,
College. Further, it contains the signature of accused
No.2 with seal as a Secretary of accused No.1 society and
signature of the Panchayath Secretary, Akuledu Gram
Panchayath, Singanamala (Mdl) with office seal.
388. In view of the above discussion, it clearly
shows that the accused No.2 and 3 have obtained Ex.P.5
(f) building plan showing the proposed built-up area of
27536.95 square feet from the P.W.9 and submitted to
191 C.C.No.17622/2017
the visiting team and when show cause notice was
issued by the NCTE as built-up area is inadequate to run
2 programs, then accused No.2 and 3 have obtained
another building plan in Ex.P.39/Ex.P.5 (d) showing the
existing built-up area of 35324.87 square feet from
P.W.9 and submitted to the NCTE by the accused No.2.
389. P.W.5 – Upendra Rao the then Assistant
Engineer, CPWD, Bengaluru stated in his evidence that
as Assistant Engineer, his duties and responsibilities
were supervision and execution of CPWD works and at
that time, apart from this work, he was assisting the
Executive Engineer in taking the evaluation of property
by taking measurements and the CBI officer came to the
office of his Higher Officer, in turn his Higher Officer
instructed him to attend the CBI office in the year 2016
and as per the directions of his Higher Officer, he went
to CBI office.
390. P.W.5 further states that after attending CBI
office, CBI officers took him to Ananthapura and they
went to Akuledu Village of Ananthapura and at that
place, CBI officers have conducted a search and
prepared Ex.P.28 search list and it bears his signature
as Ex.P-28(a). He further states that Ex.P.29 spot
observation mahazar dated 05.07.2016 bears his
signature as Ex.P-29(a) and the CBI officer has prepared
this document as per his dictation. He further states that
192 C.C.No.17622/2017
Ex.P-29 was prepared in respect of three buildings, (1)
ground floor consisted of computer room and
correspondence room (2) 1st floor consisted of teachers
residence and one class room (3) temporary shed and the
total of all above structures including temporary
structure was 270.18 square meter and the total built up
area of the ground and 1st floor are 125.16 square meter
and the total built up area of 2nd building is 84.65
square meter and the total built up area of 3rd
temporary structure is 62.37 square meter. He further
states that Ex.P.30 building layout plan bears his
signature as Ex.P-30(a).
391. P.W.5 was subjected to cross-examination by
the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 wherein he
states that himself and Executive Engineer went to the
CBI office and he has perused the original title deeds on
the spot and he has seen plan, sale deed, layout plan,
building plan, building elevation certificate on the spot.
He further states that there was no hurdle for him to
state the above facts to the Investigating Officer in his
statement. He further states that he cannot say which
title deeds he has seen at that time and he cannot say
the property number and details, which they have visited
and he cannot say the measurement of the property and
he has not seen any road and buildings. Further he
states that he has seen only three buildings, except this,
193 C.C.No.17622/2017
he has not seen any building and the Regional Director
or officials of Education Department have not
accompanied with him and he has not verified the
previous inspection report done by the inspection
committee and provisional recognition letter. He further
states that he does not know regarding the building
structure, existed earlier to previous inspection report
prepared by the inspection team and the search list was
typed at the spot and his name is not mentioned as
witness in the search list Ex.P-29.
392. It is pertinent to note that P.W.5 being Asst.
Engineer of CPWD was accompanied the CBI officers
during the search and seizure and drawing of spot
observation mahazar and Ex.P.30 rough sketch at
Akuledu village and at that time, he saw the sale deed,
building plan etc. Further, Ex.P.28 to 30 prepared on
05.07.2016 and P.W.5 examined before the Court on
18.08.2021. P.W.5 given the evidence before the after
lapse of 5 years, hence, it appears that he is unable to
say about property number, details and measurements
of the property. But he specifically deposed that he went
to Akuledu village and Ex.P.28 and 29 prepared by the
CBI officers and Ex.P.30 rough sketch signed by him and
existence of 3 buildings including temporary shed at the
spot to the total extent of 270.18 square meter.
194 C.C.No.17622/2017
393. P.W.5 further states in his cross-examination
that generally the tape is using to measure the land and
they have to see the sale deed to conduct the
measurement of any property or vacant place. He further
states that he does not know other than the sale deed,
what documents he has to look into and to ascertain the
land for identification of land, generally they used to take
the assistance of revenue officials and he has not made
any identification of the property. He admits that every
records and statement are made at the instance of CBI
office and he read and understood the regulations of
NCTE and Ex.P-29 spot mahazar was prepared at the
instance of CBI. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P-29
was prepared in the office of CBI. He admits that the
identification number of property number is not shown
in Ex.P-30 and he cannot say in which property the
sketch was prepared and he does not know the total
measurement of the property of Sharada Educational
Society. Though he admits that Ex.P-28 to Ex.P-30 were
created for the purpose of this case, but he further states
that the CBI prepared it. He admits that there is a
technology called as total station survey to measure
properties and apart from this method, there is a chain
survey and tachometry and there is one more survey i.e.,
satellite geo stationary survey to measure the properties.
He further states that to measure the properties, he has
195 C.C.No.17622/2017
not followed any of the above four methods. He admits
that revenue documents are necessary for proper
measurement and identification and he has not obtained
any revenue documents to measure property of Sarada
Educational Society.
394. Though it is elicited in the cross-examination
of P.W.5 that Ex.P.28 to 30 were created for the purpose
of this case, but, P.W.5 further voluntarily states that
CBI prepared the said documents. It is pertinent to note
that Ex.P.28 search list and Ex.P.29 spot observation
mahazar prepared by the CBI officer in the presence of
P.W.5 and other independent witnesses. P.W.5
specifically denied the suggestions that he does not know
where accused No.1 society’s property is situated and he
has not visited the spot.
395. P.W.8 – Sri. Lakshminarasimhaiah G.,
Executive Engineer, CPWD states in his evidence that on
04.07.2016, his Chief Engineer had received letter from
CBI office to send one officer to the CBI office and
accordingly, Chief Engineer deputed him to attend CBI
office. He further states on 05.07.2016, he went to the
CBI office at Ganganagar, Bengaluru and thereafter, the
CBI officer took him and P.W.5 to Akuledu,
Ananathapura Dist., and the CBI officer asked him
measure the land and building structure of the College
by name Sri Sharadha B.Ed. And D.Ed. College and
196 C.C.No.17622/2017
accordingly, they measured the land and building
structure of the said premises and Videograph also
recorded by the CBI officer.
396. P.W.8 further states that CBI officer prepared
the search list and observation mahazar as per Ex.P.37
and 38 and at the time of his inspection, he found two
permanent buildings and one temporary building and
the total built up area of the 1st structure was 125.16
square meter and the total built up area of the 2nd
structure ground was 84.65 square meter and the 2nd
structure was not having roof, hence, that area is not
taken on account. He further states that the built-up
area of the 3rd temporary structure was 62.37 square
meter and the total built up area of all the 3 structure
including temporary structure was 272.18 square meter
and all these 3 buildings were situated within the
boundary walls and the total land area of the college was
1119.30 square meters.
397. P.W.8 was subjected to cross-examination by
the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 wherein he
admits that he has not seen documents pertaining to
Sharadha Educational Society and its institutions. He
denied the suggestion that to measure any structure,
property documents are required. He admits that he does
not know the property number before proceeding to the
spot for measuring the land and does not know the
197 C.C.No.17622/2017
details of the land, which they had measured. He further
states that there is no different technologies to measure
the structure.
398. P.W.8 further admits that to measure the
land, there is a technology called total station survey.
But he denied that geo stationary technology are using
to identify the structure and to measure the structure.
He further states that he does not know whether the
land, which he inspected was converted or not and does
not know the total extent of the land stands in the name
of Sharadha Educational Society. He further states that
the measurement was done by him. He admits that he
has not taken the assistance of revenue officials at the
time of measurement. It is pertinent to note that P.W.8
being Executive Engineer accompanied the CBI officers
to measure the disputed building and he has taken the
measurement of buildings at the spot and prepared
rough sketch. At the time of measurement, he could not
seen the land conversion documents and the properties
stands in the name of accused No.1 society. He is not a
proper person to depose in this regard. He specifically
states that the CBI officer took him and P.W.5 to
Akuledu Village and he found 2 permanent building and
one temporary building and measured the same and
signed the documents prepared by the CBI officers.
198 C.C.No.17622/2017
399. On perusal of evidence of P.W.5 and 8, it
clearly shows that CBI officers took them to property of
accused No.1 society and they have measured the
existing 3 buildings including temporary shed and total
built-up area of ground and first floor of first structure is
125.16 square meter and total built-up area of second
structure is 84.65 square meter and total built-up area
of third structure i.e. temporary shed is 62.37 square
meter and Ex.P.28/Ex.P.37 and Ex.P.29/Ex.P.38 were
prepared by the CBI. Further P.W.5 identified the
Ex.P.30 rough sketch as it was prepared at the spot.
400. P.W.30 – Sri. M. Mallikarjun, TTI, Guntkal in
his evidence deposed that on 04.07.2016 his higher
officer had given instruction to him to accompany CBI
team and accordingly, on 05.07.2016 morning he went to
Ananthapur and met CBI officers and the CBI officer
instructed him to come with their vehicle to go for search
and then, the CBI inspector, other officials, himself and
other independent witnesses went to the premises of
Sharada Education Society and the CBI officers had
conducted search at the premises of Sharada Education
Society and prepared Ex.P.28 search list and they have
also prepared Ex.P.29 spot observation mahazar. He
further states that as per the said search list, the CBI
have seized 7 items of documents and 6 rubber stamps
and the rubber stamp of Panchayat Secreatry Akuledu
199 C.C.No.17622/2017
Gram Panchayath and Mandal Engineering Officer, M.P.
Singanamala were seized on the day of search. He
further states that the rubber stamp of Head Master Z.P.
high school, Koppalakond, Garladinna, Head Master
M.P.P. school, Madirepalli, Principal Sri Venkateshwara
Degree College and round rubber stamp of Sri
Venkateshwara Degree College, Tadpatri were also seized
during the search.
401. P.W.30 further states that Ex.P.87 one bunch
of document containing the affidavit, inspection report,
visiting team report and connected documents and
Ex.P.88 another bunch of documents containing sale
deeds, certificate of registration of Sharada Education
Society and other connected documents were seized. He
further states that on the same day the C.B.I. I.O. has
also prepared Ex.P.29 spot observation mahazar and
taken his signatures on Ex.P.28 to 30.
402. P.W.30 further states that 05.07.2016 again at
evening the CBI officers have conducted search in the
residential premises of Sheshadri Reddy and seized one
document and the I.O. had prepared Ex.P.89 search list
and taken his signature and the officers have seized the
documents and material objects in his presence and
after completion of all the procedures he left the spot.
200 C.C.No.17622/2017
403. P.W.30 was subjected to cross-examination by
the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 wherein he
states that the CBI had not issued any written order
to him to participate in the search proceedings and he
has seen the building, office premises and class room of
Sri Sarada Education Society and the school was
running in the premises of Sri Sarada Education Society,
when they visited the school. He further states that he
has not gone through the documents seized by CBI and
he has not aware of for what purpose the seals were used
in the school. It is pertinent to note that P.W.30
accompanied the CBI officer to conduct search and
seizure at the premises of accused No.1 society and
residential premises of accused No.2 and whatever the
materials available at the spot with respect to this case
were seized by the investigating officer. Hence, P.W.30
who is a independent witness may not aware about the
purpose of the seizure of seals which were used in the
school.
404. P.W.30 further states that now he does not
remember in which place he has signed in Ex.P.29. He
further states that the search was conducted on
05.07.2016 and it was commenced at morning 10.00 am
and completed at 04.00 pm and he does not know about
where the print out of Ex.P.28 was taken and does not
remember who took the printout of Ex.P.28. He further
201 C.C.No.17622/2017
states that the printout of Ex.P.28 was not taken in his
presence. Further, he admits that he has signed the
Ex.P.28 and spot observation mahazar in the hotel.
405. P.W.34 – Sri. V.N.Raju, Addl. S.P., deposed in
his evidence that on 05.07.2016, in pursuance of the
search warrant issued by the Hon’ble 21 st Special Court
for CBI cases dated 04.07.2016, CW.41 Sri. S.
Subramanian had conducted the search proceedings at
the office of the correspondent room of Sri Sarada B. Ed
College, Akuledu Village, Singanamala Taluk,
Ananthapuram and he was party of the search
proceedings conducted on 05.07.2016 at 07.50 hours to
14.00 hours and during the search two independent
witnesses were present and in their presence 8 items
were seized. He further states that after that, the search
list was prepared in the computer system and printout
taken outside the search premises and after taken the
printout, the search list was read over to the search team
and correctness were confirmed and after that, all the
members of search team also signed on the search list in
Ex.P.28 and 6 rubber stamps were seized during search
proceedings. He further states that during the searches,
a spot observation mahazar was prepared and the
contents of the mahazar were confirmed by the members
of the team and the printout of mahazar also taken
outside and after confirming the correctness of the
202 C.C.No.17622/2017
printout taken, the mahazar witness signed on the
Ex.P.29 mahazar.
406. P.W.34 was subjected to cross-examination
examiantion by the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and
2 wherein he states he does not know, the names of the
search team, therefore he has not stated in his
examination in chief.
407. P.W.35 – Sri. S. Subramanya Investigating
Officer, in his evidence deposed that on 04.07.2016 he
obtained the search warrant from the Hon’ble 21st
A.C.C.&S.J., Bengaluru for conducting search and on
05.07.2016 he along with Sri. V.N. Raju Dy.S.P., and
other CBI team and P.W.5 and 8 went to the premises of
accused No.1 college and conducted the searches and
CPWD Engineers took measurement of the land area and
building in the college in the presence of accused No.2
and independent witnesses and drawn the spot
observation mahazar and found that Sree Sarada
Vidyanikethan English and Telugu medium school was
functioning at the college address and no college in the
name of Sree Sarada B.Ed., college was functioning and
only name sign banner was found and there are 3
building structures including the temporary shed were in
existence and total built-up area of the same was 272.18
square meter or 2930 square feet and videograph was
203 C.C.No.17622/2017
made and transferred the videos to 2 DVDs marked as A
and A1.
408. In the cross-examination of P.W.35 he states
that Ex.P.28 and Ex.P.29 printouts are taken from their
office laptop in a private shop and he has not recorded
the statement of the private shop keeper where he had
took the printout of Ex.P.28 and 29.
409. It is elicited in the cross-examination of
P.W.30 that printout of Ex.P.28 taken in a hotel and he
signed the Ex.P.28 and 29 in the hotel. As per the
evidence of P.W.35 investigating officer, they have taken
the printout of Ex.P.28 and 29 in a private shop. In
Ex.P.29 it is mentioned in the bottom of the document as
there is no printer available in college and accused No.2
took the CBI team and others to Ananthapur and got
printout in a shop. Further, in Ex.P.28 is also it is
mentioned that the printout of the search list is being
taken from outside since no printer is available in the
premises. Hence, the printout has been taken outside
the premises of accused No.1 society as printer was not
available. Though, it is elicited in the cross-examination
of the P.W.30 that he has signed the Ex.P.28 and 29
documents at hotel, but nothing has been elicited to
discredit the evidence of P.W.30 that search and seizure
and spot observation mahazar prepared in the premises
of accused No.1 society. According to the evidence of
204 C.C.No.17622/2017
P.W.35, Ex.P.28 and Ex.P.29 printouts are taken from
their office laptop in a private shop. As per the recitals of
Ex.P.28 and 29 documents itself, printout taken from the
outside since no printer available in the premises. Hence,
it appears that the witnesses have affixed their
signatures, after taking the printout from the office
laptop in the outside of the accused No.1 society’s
premises.
410. P.W.32 – Sri. K.V. Jagannatha Reddy, Head
Constable CBI, stated in his evidence that on 05.07.2016
he had participated in search proceedings along with
C.W.36 Sri V.N. Raju in connection with this case and on
05.07.2016 at about 07.50 hours they have conducted
the search of office cum correspondence room Sri Sarada
Educational Trust Akuledu Village, Singanamala Taluk,
Ananthapur District along with two independent
witnesses and after conducting the search, CW.36 has
prepared the search list as per Ex.P.28 and they have
seized 7 items of documents and 6 rubber stamps and
on the same day, they have prepared the spot
observation mahazar at the premises of Sri Sarada
Vidhaynikethan English and Telugu medium School and
Sri Sarada D.Ed and B.Ed Education, Akuledu Village,
Singanamala Taluk, Ananthapur District as per Ex.P.29
and his signatures taken on the said documents.
205 C.C.No.17622/2017
411. P.W.32 further states that on the same day, at
about 04.00 PM, the CBI team had conducted the search
in the residential premises of Sri S. Seshadri Reddy at
Nethaji Govt. High School, Ananthapur and the I.O. of
CBI had prepared the search list as Ex.P.89 and one
document was seized.
412. P.W.32 was subjected to cross-examination by
the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 wherein he
stated that he has not narrated the details of the
documents seized during the search in his examination
in chief. He denied the suggestion that he does not know
the contents of Ex.P.28, 29 and 89.
413. Ex.P-28 is the original search list and Ex.P-37
is the copy of the search list in respect to search
conducted on 05.07.2016 at office cum correspondent
room of Sri Sarada B.Ed college, Plot No. 241/2, 2 nd
street, Akuledu village and seized the documents with 6
rubber stamps showing the impressions as under:
(a) Head Master, Z.P. High School,
Koppalakond, Garladinna(M), Anandpur
(Dt).
(b) Head Master, M.P.P School,
Madirepalli (V), Singanamala (M).
(c) Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu
Gram Panchayat, Singanamala (Mdl.).
(d) Principal, Sri Venkateswara
Degree College, TADPATRI-515411.
206 C.C.No.17622/2017
(e) Mandal Engineering Officer, M.P.
Singanamala.
(f) Round Rubber stamp having
impression Sri. Venkateswara Degree
College, TADPATRI (with date column)
with specimen seal impressions on two
sheets of paper.
414. Ex.P-29 is the original spot observation
mahazar dated 05.07.2016 and Ex.P-38 is the copy of
spot observation mahazar conducted by the Investigating
Officer at Sree Sarada Vidyanikethan English and Telugu
medium school and Sree Sarada B.Ed/D.El.Ed college of
education, Plot No. 241/2, 2nd street, Akuledu village in
the presence of the accused No. 2, PW-5 Sri. Upendra
Rao, PW-8 Sri. Lakshminarasimhaiah. G, PW-30 Sri. M.
Mallikarjuna, CW-35 Sri. K. Umashankar and other CBI
officers and Police constables. It is mentioned in the said
Mahazar that during the search conducted in the
premises of Sree Sarada B.Ed./D.El.Ed college of
Education on 05.07.2016, the measurements of the land
area and the built-up area of the building was taken by
the Executive Engineer and the Assistant Engineer of
CPWD in the presence of the independent witnesses.
Further it is mentioned that there is no college
functioning at the given address and only a school
named Sree Sarad Vidyaniketan English & Telugu
Medium School with classes 1 to 7 is being run and the
premises has a main entry with Gate facing East side
207 C.C.No.17622/2017
and without any name board and there are three
buildings situated within the premises namely (A) G+1
structure situated opposite to the Main Gate along west
side, (B) Ground floor & first floor (First floor having only
outer walls without roof) along south side and (C) A
temporary shed with asbestos cement sheet roofing.
Further, the measurement of each room in Ground floor
and First floor is mentioned in meters and further it is
mentioned that total built-up area is 272.18 square
meters(2930 square feet) including the temporary shed of
62.37 square meters. Further, it is mentioned that the
process of measurement was recorded by Sri. P. Sasi
Kumar, H.C using Sony Handicam and the recordings
were transferred to two DVDs through Sony D.V Direct
and the DVDs were marked as A and A1 respectively.
Further it is mentioned that a rough sketch of the plan
was also drawn by the CPWD Engineer and attached to
the mahazar.
415. Ex.P-30 is the original spot rough sketch of
the Sree Sarada Vidyanikethana E.M School and Sree
Sarada B.Ed and D.El.Ed College, Akuledu village
prepared by the P.W.8. The copy of the spot rough sketch
marked along with Ex.P.38.
416. Ex.P.37 and 38 are the copies of Ex.P.28 and
29 original search list and spot observation mahazar and
both are one and the same. Ex.P.37 and 38 were marked
208 C.C.No.17622/2017
subject to objection. Admittedly Ex.P.37 and 38 are the
copies. However, the original of the Ex.P.37 and 38 are
already marked as Ex.P.28 and 29 respectively.
417. Ex.P-87 is the bunch of documents containing
the format of affidavit, copies of the Inspection Report,
Visiting Team report, building completion certificate
dated 25.08.2015, original proceedings of the Director,
SCERT, Andhra Pradesh dated 16.03.2016, original
approved staff list, original Soundness Certificate dated
26.03.2015 etc. Ex.P- 88 is the copies of the Gift Deed,
undertaking correspondence letter, Certificate of
Registration, Memorandum of Association, original
letters dated 18.01.2016 and 26.08.2015 written by the
PW-2 to Correspondent Secretary of accused No. 1
Society etc. Ex.P-87(a) is the signature of the PW-30.
418. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.5, 8, 30, 32,
34 and 35 and Ex.P.28 to 30 documents, it shows that
the CBI officers have conducted the search and seizure
in the premises of accused No.1 society on 05.07.2016 in
the presence of P.W.5, 8 and 30 and other independent
witnesses and at that time P.W.32 and 34 accompanied
the P.W.35 and they have seized 7 documents and 6
rubber stamps and also drawn the spot observation
mahazar in respect existence of buildings and P.W.5 and
8 measured the said buildings and prepared the rough
sketch.
209 C.C.No.17622/2017
419. Admittedly, there are minor discrepancies in
the evidence of P.W.5, 8, 30 as they are the witnesses to
the search and seizure and spot observation mahazar
which was conducted on 05.07.2016 and P.W.5 and 8
have given evidence before the Court on 18.08.2021 and
12.10.2021 respectively after lapse of 5 years and P.W.30
given evidence before the Court on 25.01.2023 after
lapse of more than 6 years. Hence, minor discrepancies
bound to occur.
420. P.W.12 – Sri. P. Venugopala Gupta, Mandal
Surveyor, in his evidence states that he worked as
Mandal surveyor in Singanamala Mandal in the year
2013 and as Mandal surveyor, his duties is to
demarcation of Lands and sub-division of lands. He
further states that the RDO, Ananthapur had instructed
him to go to Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal,
Ananthpur District to identify the buildings pertaining to
the Sharada Education Society and as per the
instruction for RDO, he visited the spot and prepared the
sketch and took the photographs. Further he identified
Ex.P.40 letter dated 25.10.2016 written by Sri.A.Malola,
RDO, Ananthpur, addressed to S.P, CBI regarding his
deputation to inspection of the building and Ex.P.41 his
report with regarding the inspection of the site dated
19.10.2016 and Ex.P.42 field measurement sketch
pertaining to field / survey No. 241/2 of Akuledu village
210 C.C.No.17622/2017
and Ex.P.43 two Photographs which were taken at the
time of survey. He further identified Ex.P.44 Coordinate
sketch of Survey No.2/41 of Akuledu village and Ex.P.45
Adangal Extract of Sy.No.241 of Akuledu village, issued
by V.R.O. of Tharimala village in-charge of Akuledu
village and Ex.P.46 report submitted by Sri.Nallappa,
Village Revenue Officer to Tahasildar, regarding
Sy.No.241 of Akuledu village and Ex.P.47 Re-settlement
Register of Akuledu village and Ex.P.48 letter of
Sri.Malola addressed to S.P., CBI., regarding conversion
of land bearing Sy.No.241/2 of Akaledu village. He
further identified his signatures and signatures of his
higher officer on these documents.
421. P.W.12 further states that he had inspected
the site in Sy.No.241/2 of Akaledu village, Singanamala
Mandal, Ananthpur District and noticed that the
building in the name of Sri.Sharada English Medium
Vidyanikethana School and Sharada B.Ed., College was
existing and the said building consisting ground floor
and 1st floor and the name of the occupant is not
known and the total measurement of the said land
bearing Sy.No.241/2, is 7.43 Acres and there was a
boundary for the properties of the school. He further
states that he has measured the same and mentioned in
sketch in Ex.P.42 and as per Ex.P.45, the said land is
dry land and name of owners of the said land is
211 C.C.No.17622/2017
D.Diwan, Smt.Arakulla Begh, Smt.Mahaboobbee,
Smt.D.Fathima, P.Allabakash and Venkatasubbaiah and
the said land patta also standing in their names only.
422. P.W.12 was subjected to cross-examination by
the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 wherein he
states that he has conducted inspection and his job is to
conduct the survey and he is aware about survey
manual of Andrapradesh State and as per manual it is
mandate to issue notice to the owners of that particular
Survey numbers and he has not issued notice before
conducting survey. He further states that he has
conducted the survey as per the instruction given by the
Tahasildar.
423. P.W.12 further admits that he has to conduct
survey to identify any survey number or property as per
survey manual of Andrapradesh State and he has not
conducted survey of Land bearing Sy.No.241 and
Sy.No.241/2 of Akaledu village. Further he denied the
suggestion that he is giving false evidence before the
Court without conducting any survey of land bearing
Sy.No.241 and Sy.No.241/2 of Akaledu village. He
further admits that the correct measurement can be said
only on the basis of Tippani copy and he further states
that Tippani copy is called field measurement book and
he has no any problem to state before the I.O. that
F.M.B. and Tippani one and same.
212 C.C.No.17622/2017
424. As per the evidence of P.W.12, he visited the
accused No.1 society as per the instruction RDO,
Ananthapura and prepared the Ex.P.41 report and
Ex.P.42 sketch and taken the Ex.P.43 two photographs.
425. Ex.P-40 is the letter dated 25.10.2016 written
by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the CBI in respect to
deputation of Village Revenue Officer, Akuledu village
and Mandal Surveyor, Singanamala on 28.10.2016 to
attend before the Superintendent of Police, Head of
Branch, CBI to record present status of the land in Sy.
No. 241/2, Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal,
Ananthapuramu District, Andhra Pradesh along with
recorded proof and what is the structure available in Sy.
No. 241/2, Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal,
Ananthapuramu District, Andhra Pradesh along with the
recorded proof. Ex.P.40(a) is the signature of RDO.
426. Ex.P-41 is the report submitted by the PW-12
Sri. P. Venugopal Guptha that he has inspected the Sy.
No. 241/2 of Akuledu village, Singanamala Mandal,
Ananthapuramu District and he has observed the
building constructed in Sy. No. 241/2 of Akuledu village
and the same is shown in the enclosed sketch for
reference and Ex.P-41(a) is the signature of PW-12.
213 C.C.No.17622/2017
427. Ex.P-42 is the Field Measurement Sketch of
Sy. No. 241/2 of Akuledu village prepared by the PW-12
and Ex.P-42(a) is the signature of the PW-12.
428. Ex.P-43 are the two photographs of the
building which were marked subject to objection that the
certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act is not
furnished. Admittedly, these photographs are secondary
evidence and it was taken by the P.W.12 during the
survey of the land, but he has not produced the
certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act. Hence, these
photographs cannot be looked into in the absence of the
said certificate.
429. Ex.P-44 is the co-ordinate sketch of Sy. No.
241 of Akuledu village prepared by the PW-12 and Ex.P-
44(a) is the signature of the PW-12. Ex.P-45 is the
Adangal Extract of Sy. No. 241 of Akuledu village and
Ex.P-45(a) is the signature of V.R.O. Ex.P-46 is the
report of Village Revenue Officer, Tharimala village of
Singanamala Mandal. Ex.P.46(a) is the signature of
V.R.O. Ex.P-47 is the Re-settlement Register of Akuledu
village.
430. Ex.P-48 is the true copy of the letter dated
04.10.2016 written by the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Anantapuramu to CBI that ‘After verifying the office
214 C.C.No.17622/2017
records, it is found that Sri. S. Sheshadri Reddy,
Secretary and Correspondent, Sree Sarada Educational
Rural Development and Animal Welfare Society, Akuledu
village, Singanamala Mandal, Anatapuram District has
not applied for conversion of land in respect of the land
in Sy.No. 241/2, extent 01 acre of Akuledu village of
Singanamala Mandal, hence, issue of conversion
proceedings from this office does not arise and the
conversion proceedings sent along with the reference
cited above has not been issued from this office and it is
fake’. Further PW-13 identified the signature of
Superintendent by name Sri. Laxminarayana and the
same is marked as Ex.P-48(a).
431. Of course, there are some minor discrepancies
in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. But it is the
duty of the Court to separate chaff from grain. Therefore,
testimony of P.W.5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 30, 32 and 34 is cogent,
clinching and reliable. Nothing has been elicited in their
cross examination to discredit their evidence.
432. The 2 original NCTE, SRC, Format 12,
Questionnaire (to be filled by the Institution) u/s 14 and
15 of the NCTE Act 1993 are marked in Ex.P-5 at sheet
No. 99 to 112. These two documents reveals that the
name of the Institution and address as Sree Sarada B.Ed
and D.El.Ed College of Education, Akuledu village and
215 C.C.No.17622/2017
Post, Singanamala Mandal, Anantapuram District,
SRCAPP3400 and SRCAPP3401. Further it reveals in
column 5(a) Teacher Education Program as under:
Sl. Name of Address of the NCTE Intak Name of Built up
No the building where Order No. e the space(Sq.
. Course the course is and Date affiliating mts/sq.ft
being run body
1. D.El.Ed Akuledu SRCAPP34 50 B.Ed 7445
00 B.Ed NCTE
2. B.Ed Akuledu SRCAPP34 50+5 D.El.ED 7445
01D.El.Ed 0 NCTE
433. Further in the said Format 12 Questionnaire
at column No. 6 also the built up area mentioned as
7445 square feet for B.Ed and E.El.Ed course and at
column No. 8, the Sy. No. 241/2, Akuledu village,
measuring 01 acre land is mentioned. Further in the
said document at column No. 9 building, the carpet area
of the class rooms, multipurpose hall, library etc
mentioned in square feet. Further, the photograph of the
building also affixed which reveals that ground floor and
first floor building is available. Further in these two
documents, the declaration made by the accused No. 2
with his signature and seal of accused No. 1 Institution
separately that each statement and/or contents of the
declaration and/or documents certificates submitted
along with the declaration by the undersigned are
absolutely true, correct and authentic and in the event of
any statements documents made in the declaration
subsequently turning out to be incorrect or false the
216 C.C.No.17622/2017undersigned has understood and accepted that such
mis-declaration in respect to any content of the
declaration shall also be treated as a gross violation of
NCTE Act, 1993 and regulations thereby rendering the
undersigned liable for action as per law.
434. As per the above two Format-12
questionnaires, the accused No.2 stated built-up area
7445 is available for B.Ed., course and 7445 is available
for D.El.Ed., course and also declaration submitted. But,
whether 7445 built-up area is in square meter or square
feet is not mentioned. The signatures of the accused No.2
in the said declarations marked as Q9 and Q10. As
discussed above, the P.W.36 in his evidence states that
the persons who wrote the S1 to S6 also wrote the
signatures marked in Q9 and Q10. S1 to S6 are
specimen signatures of accused No.2. Hence, accused
No.2 wrote the signature marked in Q9 and Q10 in
Format-12.
435. As discussed above, P.W.18 and 20 in their
evidence states that there was sufficient facilities were
there to start D.Ed., college and as per Ex.P.71
inspection report prepared by the P.W.18 and 19, the
built-up area mentioned as 3282.98 square meters. It is
pertinent to note that the accused No.2 in Format-12
submitted to the SRC-NCTE declared that built-up area
is 7445 each for both courses. Though, the square meter
217 C.C.No.17622/2017or Square feet is not mentioned specifically, then
according to the said Format-12, total built-up area is
14890. Hence, this total built-up area also not tallied
with built-up area mentioned in Ex.P.71 by P.W.18 and
19.
436. As discussed above, Q24 marked in Ex.P.39 is
the signature of the accused No.2 which was compared
and examined with the specimen signatures of accused
No.2 marked in S1 to S6 by the P.W.36 expert and as per
his opinion, the person who wrote the blue enclosed
signatures stamped and marked as S1 to S6 also wrote
the red enclosed signature similarly stamped and
marked Q24. Hence, as per the evidence of P.W.36,
accused No.2 affixed the signature marked as Q24 in
Ex.P.39.
437. Though, P.W.18 and 20 in their evidence
states that there was sufficient facilities were there to
start D.Ed., college, but the evidence of P.W.5, 8, 9, 10,
12, 30, 32, 34 and 35 clearly shows that actual building
had a total built-up area of 272.18 square meter
including the temporary shed. The testimony of P.W.5, 8,
9, 10, 12, 30, 32, 34 and 35 is cogent, clinching and
reliable. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that
prosecution has established that in pursuance of
criminal conspiracy to somehow obtain the formal
recognition, accused No.3 obtained another false
218 C.C.No.17622/2017building plan from P.W.9 showing a total built up area of
3,281 square meter (35,324.87 square feet), whereas the
actual buildings had a total built-up area of 272.18
square meter (2,930 square feet), including the
temporary shed of 62.37 square meter (671 square feet),
which is grossly inadequate in terms of the NCTE
Regulations, 2014 and submitted to the SRC-NCTE.
438. As per the prosecution case, in pursuance of
criminal conspiracy, in order to falsely show that the
building plan was issued by the competent authority, on
the instruction of accused No.3, the accused No.2 got the
seal i.e. rubber stamp, made in the name of Panchayat
Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayat, Singanamala (Mdl.)
and affixed the same on the building plan.
439. The original seal and signature of the
Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayat,
Singanamala (Mdl.) is found on Ex.P.39 original building
plan and Ex.P.5 (d) is the copy of the same. The original
seal of Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayat,
Singanamala (Mdl.) is marked as Q29.
440. Ex.P-109 is the Receipt Memo dated
15.10.2016 in respect to production of a Rubber Stamp
with impressions ‘Panchayat Secretary, AKULEDU G.P.,
Singanamala (M), Anantapuramu (Dist.)’ – 1 Rubber
Stamp by C.W.13 – K. Raja Shekhar, Panchayath
219 C.C.No.17622/2017Secretary, Mandal Panchayath Office to the Investigating
Officer in the presence of Sri. H.G Nagaraj, Senior
Manager (Rtd), Bank of Baroda. The rubber stamp
impression was marked as S17.
441. As per the order sheet, it is reported by the
CBI that C.W.13 was died on 04.03.2019 and death
certificate also furnished in this regard.
442. Ex.P-111 is the two sheets of the Seal
Impressions of seized rubber stamps from the officer of
Correspondent, Sree Sarada Vidyanikethan, Akuledu
village, Anantapur on 05.07.2016 during the searches.
The seal impression of Panchayat Secretary Akuledu
Gram Panchayath Singanamala (Mdl.) is marked as S13.
The seal impression of Panchayat Secretary Akuledu
Gram Panchayath Singanamala (Mdl.) is marked as S14.
The seal impression of Mandal Engineering Officer, M P
Singanamala is marked as S15. The seal impression of
Mandal Engineering Officer, M P Singanamala is
marked as S16.
443. As per the evidence of P.W.36, the red
enclosed seal impressions stamped and marked Q29
tally with the blue enclosed sample seal impressions
similarly stamped and marked S13 and S14 and the red
enclosed seal impressions stamped and marked Q29 do
not tally with the blue enclosed sample seal impressions
220 C.C.No.17622/2017
similarly stamped and marked S17. Hence, as per the
expert opinion, the seal marked as Q29 in Ex.P.39 tallies
with the samples seals marked S13 and S14 in Ex.P.111.
The said seal impressions on Ex.P.111 marked as S13
and S14 were taken from the seized M.O.3 rubber stamp.
Further, as per the expert opinion, the seal impression
marked as Q29 do not tally with the sample seal
impression marked as S17 in Ex.P.109. The sample seal
impression taken on Ex.P.109 receipt memo from M.O.7.
As discussed above, the prosecution witnesses specially
deposed before the Court about the seizure of the M.O.3
and 5 rubber stamp from the office of accused No.2 on
05.07.2016 during the search and seizure as per
Ex.P.28.
444. In view of the above discussion, the
prosecution has established that in order to falsely show
that the building plan was issued by the competent
authority, the accused No.2 got the seal i.e. rubber
stamp, made in the name of Panchayat Secretary,
Akuledu Gram Panchayat, Singanamala (Mdl.) and
affixed the same on the Ex.P.39/Ex.P.5(d) building plan
and submitted to the SRC-NCTE.
445. As per the prosecution case, on the
instruction of accused No.3, accused No.2 got the seal
i.e. rubber stamp in the name of Mandal Engineering
Officer, Singanamal Mandal, made and affixed the same
221 C.C.No.17622/2017
on the building completion certificate and accused No.2
also got the seal i.e. rubber stamp, made in the name of
Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu Gram Panchayat,
Singanamala (Mdl.) and affixed the same on the building
plan, thereby making or possessing counterfeit seals
with intent to commit forgery.
446. As discussed above, the prosecution has
proved that M.O.1 to 6 rubber stamps were seized from
the office cum correspondent room of accused No.1
society on 05.07.2016 as per Ex.P.28. M.O.3 and 5
rubber stamps impressions mentioned in Ex.P.28 search
list at Sl.No.8 (c) and (e) respectively. Hence, as per
prosecution M.O.3 and 5 are the fake rubber stamps
which were seized from the accused No.2 on 05.07.2016.
As already discussed the evidence of P.W.30, 32, 34 and
35 have deposed about the seizure of M.O.1 to 6 rubber
stamps from the office of the accused No.1 society.
Though, P.W.32, 34 and 35 are the CBI officers, but
P.W.30 is a independent witness who was present during
the search and seizure conducted on 05.07.2016.
Though, P.W.30, 32, 34 and 35 have been cross
examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the accused
No.1 and 2, but nothing has been elicited to discredit
their evidence. Hence, considering the oral and
documentary evidence as discussed above, this Court is
of the opinion that the accused No.2 in pursuance of
222 C.C.No.17622/2017
criminal conspiracy hatched with accused No.3, got the
seal i.e. rubber stamp in the name of Mandal
Engineering Officer, Singanamal Mandal, made and
affixed the same on the building completion certificate
and accused No.2 also got the seal i.e. rubber stamp,
made in the name of Panchayat Secretary, Akuledu
Gram Panchayat, Singanamala (Mdl.) and affixed the
same on the building plan, thereby making or possessing
counterfeit seals with intent to commit forgery.
447. P.W.21 – Sri. V. Satyanaraya, in his evidence
deposed that during 2016 – 2018, he working as
Principal in CMI Degree College, Ananthapur and he
know accused No.3 through his common friends and at
that time accused No.3 was dealing the chit funds and
he has also subsribed one Chit from him and every
Month, he was paying Rs.10,000/- to accused No.3. He
further states that accused No.3 offered him partnership
of Shri Sharada Educational Society, Akuledu,
Ananthapur District and he agreed to the proposal and
he has paid Rs.1.8 Lakhs in installments to accused
No.3 and there was no any agreeement to that effect in
writing and he has paid Rs.80,000/- in one time and
another time he has paid Rs.50,000/- in cash and his
role in the Shri Sharada Educational Society was to give
guidelines to the staff and principal and maintain
admission registers and other records etc.
223 C.C.No.17622/2017
448. P.W.21 was subjected to cross-examination by
the Ld. Counsel for accused No.3 wherein he admits that
he is governed by College Aid Educational Authority and
he has not informed to his Authority about participating
in the affairs of the other College and he does not know
about in whose name and who is running the Shri
Sharada Educational institution and he does not know,
how accused No.3 is related to Shri Sharada Educational
institution. He further states that, he has not received
any receipt from the accused No.3 and he is unable to
give details about when he has taken the amount.
449. P.W.21 was subjected to cross-examination by
the Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 wherein he
admits that he never visited to Shri Sharada Educational
Society situated at Akuledu and he has not shown
investment made in chit funds in his I.T. Returns.
450. In view of the above elicitation made in the
cross-examination of P.W.21, though he states that he
never visited to the accused No.2 society and he has not
informed about participating in affairs of other college to
his higher authority and he does not know in whose
name and who was running the accused No.1 society,
but nothing has been elicited to discredit his evidence in
respect to approach by the accused No. 3. Hence, to the
said extent, the evidence of PW-21 is reliable.
224 C.C.No.17622/2017
451. P.W.24 – Sri. P. Ashokkumar Reddy, in his
chief examination states that he, accused No.2 and 3
had discussed above opening of new D.Ed. college and
they agreed to became partners and they have
contributed Rs.2,00,000/- each to the accused No.1
institution. But, in his cross-examination he states that
he has no proof to show that he has paid Rs.2,00,000/-
to the accused No.1 society and on the pressure of CBI,
he deposed his chief examination. Hence, the evidence of
P.W.24 is also not reliable.
452. P.W.27 – Smt. Anjanee Devi, who is the wife of
P.W.24 in her evidence states that during the
investigation the CBI officers shown Ex.P.84 i.e.
members list of accused No.1 society wherein her name
reflects as Ex.P.84 (a). Further, she has not supported
the case of the prosecution. Considering her evidence,
she treated as hostile and subjected to cross-
examination by the Ld. PP wherein nothing has been
elicited.
453. P.W.29 – Sri. C. Phani Bhushan in his
evidence states that he know accused No.2, but does not
know about the accused No.1 society and I.O., of CBI
has not shown him any CD pertaining to the videography
done during the inspection of accused No.1 society and
he does not know whether he went to the college during
225 C.C.No.17622/2017
the inspection. Considering his evidence, he treated as
hostile and subjected to cross-examination by the Ld. PP
wherein nothing has been elicited.
454. P.W.31 – Smt. K. Madavi Latha in her evidence
states that she know accused No.2 who was the Head
Master of Sree Sarada Vidyanikethan Upper Primary
School and at that time she was working as school
teacher in Pragathi Vidyanikethan School and after got
information about the vacancy in Sree Sarada
Vidyanikethan Upper Primary School, she joined the said
school as teacher. She further states that she does not
know whether accused No.2 was running D.Ed., and
B.Ed. College at the premises of school and CBI officers
have not confronted the documents pertaining to
accused No.1 society. Considering her evidence, she
treated as hostile and subjected to cross-examination by
the Ld. PP wherein nothing has been elicited.
455. In view of the above discussions, the P.W.24,
27, 29 and 31 have not supported the prosecution case.
However, the other prosecution witnesses have
supported the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, the
burden is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond all reasonable doubts. As per Section
106 of Indian Evidence Act, when any fact is especially is
within the knowledge of any person, the burden of
proving that fact is upon him. In this case, as discussed
226 C.C.No.17622/2017
above, the accused No.2 has made self attestation with
his signature on the important documents marked in
Ex.P.1 to 5 and also in Ex.P.5(f), 5(d), 5 (n), 5(o), Ex.P.39
and made signatures on original letter Ex.P.5 (c) and
other correspondences made by him. Hence, signing on
these documents is especially within the knowledge of
accused No.2, hence, the burden of proving under what
circumstances he had affixed his signatures on these
documents is upon the accused No.2. But, he has failed
to explain the same.
456. The Ld. Counsel for accused No. 3 has relied
upon the decision reported in (2014) 10 Supreme Court
Cases 473 in between Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer and
Others wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
–
Electronic record produced for the
inspection of the court is documentary
evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence
Act, 1872 (Evidence Act). Any
documentary evidence by way of an
electronic record under the Evidence Act,
in view of Sections 59 and 56-A, can be
proved only in accordance with the
procedure prescribed under Section 65B
of the Evidence Act. The purpose of these
provisions is to sanctify secondary
evidence in electronic from generated by a
computer. The very admissibility of
electronic record which is called as
computer output depends on the
satisfaction of the 4 conditions prescribed
227 C.C.No.17622/2017
under Section 65 B (2) of the Evidence
Act.
Under Section 65 B (4) of the Evidence
Act, if it is desired to give a statement in
any proceedings pertaining to an
electronic record, it is permissible
provided the following conditions are
satisfied:
(a) There must be a certificate which
should identifies the electronic record
containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the
manner in which the electronic record
was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the
particulars of the device involved in the
production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the
applicable conditions mentioned under
Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a
person occupying a responsible official
position in relation to the operation of the
relevant device.
The person concerned occupying the
responsible official position concerned
need only to state in the certificate that
the same is to the best of his knowledge
and belief. Most importantly, such a
certificate must accompany the electronic
record like computer printout, Compact
Disc (CD), Video Compact Disc (VCD),
pen drive, etc., which contains the
228 C.C.No.17622/2017
statement which is sought to be given in
evidence, when the same is produced in
evidence. All these safeguards are taken
to ensure the source and authenticity,
which are the two hallmarks pertaining to
electronic record sought to be used as
evidence. Electronic records being more
susceptible to tampering, alteration,
transposition, excision, etc. without such
safeguards, the whole trial based on proof
of electronic records can lead to travesty
of justice.
Only if the electronic record is duly
produced in terms of Section 65B of the
Evidence Act, would the question arise
as to the genuineness thereof and in that
situation, resort can be made to Section
45A of the Evidence Act – opinion of
examiner of electronic evidence can be
sought.
The Evidence Act does not contemplate
or permit the proof of an electronic record
by oral evidence if requirements under
Section 65B of the Evidence Act are not
complied with, as the law now stands in
India.
It is relevant to note that Section 69 of
the Police and Criminal Evidence Act,
1984 dealing with evidence on computer
records in the United Kingdom was
repealed by Section 60 of the Youth
Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, 1999.
Computer evidence hence must follow the
common law rule, where a presumption
exists that the computer producing the
evidential output was recording properly
at the material time. The presumption
229 C.C.No.17622/2017
can be rebutted if evidence to the
contrary is adduced. In the United States
of America, under Federal Rule of
Evidence, reliability of records normally
go to the weight of evidence and not to
admissibility.
Proof of electronic record is a special
provision introduced by the Information
Technology Act 2000 amending various
provisions under the Evidence Act. The
very caption of Section 65 A of the
Evidence Act read with Sections 59 and
65B thereof is sufficient to hold that the
special provisions on evidence relating to
electronic record shall be governed by the
procedure prescribed under Section 65B
of the Evidence Act. That is a complete
code in itself. Being a special law, the
general law under Sections 63 and 65 of
the Evidence Act has to yield. Generalia
Specialibus non derogrant: the special
law will always prevail over the general
Law. Hence, Section 63 and 65 of the
Evidence Act have no application in the
case of secondary evidence by way of
electronic record; the same is wholly
governed by Sections 65 A and 65 B. An
electronic record by way of secondary
evidence shall not be admitted in the
evidence unless the requirements under
Section 65 -B are satisfied. Thus, in the
case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same
shall be accompanied by the certificate in
terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act
obtained at the time of taking the
document, without which, the secondary
evidence pertaining to that electronic
record, is inadmissible.
230 C.C.No.17622/2017
The appellant (election petitioner)
admittedly has not produced any
certificate in terms of Section 65B in
respect of the CDs, Exhibits-P4, P8, P9,
P10, P12, P13, P15, P20 and P22.
Therefore, the same cannot be admitted
in evidence. Thus, the whole case set up
regarding the corrupt practice against the
first respondent by using songs,
announcements and speeches fall to the
ground. The situation would have been
different had the appellant adduced
primary evidence, by making available in
evidence, the CDs used for
announcement and songs. Had those CDs
used for objectionable songs or
announcements been duly got seized
through the police or Election
Commission and had the same been used
as primary evidence, the High Court
could have played the same in court to
see whether the allegations were true.
That is not the situation in this case. The
speeches, songs and announcements
were recorded using other instruments
and by feeding them into a computer,
CDs were made therefrom which were
produced in court, without due
certification. Those CDs cannot be
admitted in evidence since the mandatory
requirements of Section 65B of the
Evidence Act are not satisfied. It is
clarified that notwithstanding what is
stated herein on the secondary evidence
of electronic record with reference to
Section 59, 65 A and 65 B of the
Evidence Act, if an electronic record as
such is used as primary evidence under
Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same
is admissible in evidence, without the
231 C.C.No.17622/2017
requirement of compliance of the
conditions in Section 65B of the Evidence
Act.
457. In view of above decision, electronic records
being more susceptible to tampering, alteration,
transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the
whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead
to travesty of justice and the very admissibility of
electronic record which is called as computer output
depends on the satisfaction of the 4 conditions
prescribed under Section 65 B (2) of the Evidence Act
and the Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the
proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if
requirements under Section 65B of the Evidence Act are
not complied with, as the law now stands in India. It is
further held that Section 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act
have no application in the case of secondary evidence by
way of electronic record; the same is wholly governed by
Sections 65 A and 65 B. An electronic record by way of
secondary evidence shall not be admitted in the evidence
unless the requirements under Section 65 B are
satisfied.
458. Instant case as discussed above, the
prosecution has produced Ex.P-20(a) and Ex.P-20(b) CDs
in respect to videography done during the Ex.P-29 spot
Observation Mahazar and Ex.P-43 photographs also
232 C.C.No.17622/2017
produced without certificate u/Sec.65 B of Evidence Act
and the said CDs marked subject to objection. Hence, in
view of above decision, an electronic record by way of
secondary evidence shall not be admitted in the evidence
unless the requirements under Section 65 B of Indian
Evidence Act are satisfied. Hence, the Ex.P-20(a) & (b)
videographs which were made while conducting the spot
observation mahazar and Ex.P-43 photographs taken by
the PW-12 during survey are produced and marked
without production of certificate u/Sec.65 B of Evidence
Act. Hence, the said electronic record i.e. Ex.P-20(a) and
(b) and Ex.P-43 shall not be admitted in the evidence by
way of secondary evidence. Hence, the above decision is
aptly applicable to the case on hand.
459. The Ld. Counsel for the accused No.3 has
relied upon the decision reported in AIR 2015 SC 3549 in
between Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. The Dist. Inspector
of Police and another wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that ;
25. In reiteration of the golden
principle which runs through the web of
administration of justice in criminal
cases, this Court in Sujit Biswas vs.
State of Assam (2013) SC SCC 406 had
held that suspicion, however grave
cannot take the place of proof and the
prosecution cannot afford to rest its
case in the realm of “may be” true but
has to upgrade it in the domain of
233 C.C.No.17622/2017
“must be” true in order to steer clear of
any possible surmise or conjecture. It
was held, that the Court must ensure
that miscarriage of justice is avoided
and if in the facts and circumstances,
two views are plausible, then the benefit
of doubt must be given to the accused.
460. In view of the above decision, the Court must
ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if in the
facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then
the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. In this
case, as discussed above, the prosecution has clearly
established chain of circumstances, hence there is no
two views are plausible in this case. Hence, the facts of
the above decision and facts of the case on hand are
different. Therefore, the above decision is not applicable
to the case on hand.
461. The Ld. Counsel for the accused No.3 has
relied upon the decision reported in AIR 2013 SC 3817 in
between Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that; in a case of
circumstantial evidence, the stated burden of proof on
the prosecution is much greater. In this case, as
discussed above, the prosecution has clearly established
chain of circumstances without any suspicion. Hence,
the facts of the above decision and facts of the case on
234 C.C.No.17622/2017
hand are different. Therefore, the above decision is not
applicable to the case on hand.
462. The Ld. Counsel for the accused No.3 has
relied upon the decision reported in (2009) 15 SCC 200in
between State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman
Rao Wankhede wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that; Even in a case where the burden is on the accused,
it is well known, the prosecution must prove the
foundational facts. In this case, as discussed above, the
prosecution has clearly established foundational facts
regarding the involvment of the accused No.3 in taking
recognition for the D.El.Ed., and B.Ed., courses. Hence,
the prosecution has proved the foundational facts and
there is no possibility to have both views. Hence, the
facts of the above decision and facts of the case on hand
are different. Therefore, the above decision is not
applicable to the case on hand.
463. The Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2
has relied upon the decision reported in (2018) 7 SCC
581 in between Sheila Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj and
Another wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that ;
27. A. reasonable doubt has already
been thoroughly explained in Latesh Vs.
State of Maharashtra wherein
“reasonable doubt has been enunciated
by this Court as (at SCC p. 83, para 46)
a mean between excessive caution and
excessive indifference to a doubt, further
235 C.C.No.17622/2017
it has been elaborated that reasonable c
doubt must be a practical one and not
an abstract theoretical hypothesis”
28. In this case at hand, the imposter
has not been found or investigated into
by the officer concerned. Nothing has
been spilled on the relationship between
the imposter and Respondent 1. Law is
well settled with regard to the fact that
however strong the suspicion may be, it
cannot take the place of proof. Strong
suspicion, coincidence, grave doubt
cannot take the place of proof. Always a
duty is cast upon the courts to ensure
that suspicion does not take place of the
legal proof. In this case, the trial court
as well as the appellate court got carried
away by the fact that accused is the
beneficiary or the executant of the
mortgage deed, where the prosecution
miserably failed to prove the first
transaction ie. PoA as a fraudulent and
forged transaction. The standard of
proof in a criminal trial is proof beyond
reasonable doubt because the right to
personal liberty of a citizen can never be
taken away by the standard of
preponderance of probability.
464. In view of the above decision, always a duty is
cast upon the courts to ensure that suspicion does not
take place of the legal proof. In this case, as discussed
above, the prosecution has clearly proved the chain of
circumstances beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the
facts of the above decision and facts of the case on hand
236 C.C.No.17622/2017
are different. Therefore, the above decision is not
applicable to the case on hand.
465. The Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2
has relied upon the decision reported in (1999) 7 SCC
280 in between State of H.P. Vs. Jai Lal and others
wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that ;
18. An expert is not a witness of fact.
His evidence is really of an Advisory
character. The duty of an expert
witness is to furnish the Judge with the
necessary scientific criteria for testing
the accuracy of the conclusions so as to
enable the Judge to form his
independent judgment by the
application of this criteria to the facts
proved by the evidence of the case. The
scientific opinion evidence, if
intelligible, convincing and tested
becomes a factor and often an
important factor for consideration along
with the other evidence of the case.
The credibility of such a witness
depends on the reasons stated in
support of his conclusions and the data
and material furnished which form the
basis of his conclusions.
19. The report submitted by an expert
does not go in evidence automatically.
He is to be examined as a witness in
court and has to face cross-
examination. This Court in the case of
Hazi Mohammad Ekramul Haq v. State
of W.B. concurred with the finding of
the High Court in not placing any
reliance upon the evidence of an expert
237 C.C.No.17622/2017
witness on the ground that his evidence
was merely an opinion unsupported by
any reasons.
466. In veiw of the above decision, the credibility of
expert witness depends on the reasons stated in support
of his conclusions and the data and material furnished
which form the basis of his conclusions. In this case,
P.W.36 is an expert witness and he deposed that he
independently examined the documents sent to the CFSL
by utilizing various scientific aids that included lenses of
various magnifications and he applied the basic principal
of comparison i.e. like with like comparision during the
examiantion of signature and he gave the opinion and
reasons for his opinion in Ex.P.114 report. On perusal of
the reasons assigned for the opinion forms a basis for his
conclusions. Though P.W.36 was cross examined at
length, but nothing has been elicited to discredit his
version. Hence, the facts of the above decision and facts
of the case on hand are different. Therefore, the above
decision is not applicable to the case on hand.
467. The Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2
has relied upon the decision SLP (Crl.) No.9744 of 2024
in between Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh and Anr wherein Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that ;
238 C.C.No.17622/2017
17. Ms. Prerna Singh has also argued
that though the charge sheet has been
filed under Section 420, the contours of
the offence of forgery are evident as the
appellant has knowingly used a fake
document.
18. We are unable to accept her
submission on this score too there is
nothing on record to show the appellant
had manufactured the alleged fake
document which is a sine qua non to
attract Section 465 IPC. In fact, the
original fabricated document had not
been recovered.
19. In Sheila Sebastian v. R.
Jawaharaj & Anr., this Court held to
attract Section 464 IPC, the prosecution
must establish that the accused had
made the fake document. No material
connecting the appellant to the making
of the fake document has been adduced
in the impugned charge sheet.
20. Similarly, offences under Section
468 IPC and Section 471 IPC are not
attracted, as the requisite mens rea, i.e.,
dishonest intention to cause wrongful
loss to the Education Department and
wrongful gain to himself has not been
demonstrated as the issuance of the
recognition was not dependent on the
production of the alleged forged NOC.
468. In the above decision, the original fabricated
document had not been recovered, hence it is held that
the Section 420, 468 and 471 of IPC do not attracted. In
this case, during the investigation I.O. has seized M.O.3
239 C.C.No.17622/2017
and 5 rubber stamps under the searchs and further the
fabricated documents i.e. Ex.P.39 original building plan
and Ex.P.5 (f), Ex.P.5 (n) and Ex.P.5 (o) which were self
attested by the accused No.2 are produced before the
Court. Hence, the facts of the above decision and facts of
the case on hand are different. Therefore, the above
decision is not applicable to the case on hand.
469. The Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2
has relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1980 SCC
531 in between Muralilal Vs. State of M.P. wherein
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that ;
11. We are firmly of the opinion that
there is no rule of law, nor any rule of
prudence which has crystallized into a
rule of law, that opinion evidence of a
handwriting expert must never be acted
upon, unless substantially corroborated.
But, having due regard to the imperfect
nature of the science of identification of
handwriting, the approach, as we
indicated earlier, should be one of
caution Reasons for the opinion must be
carefully probed and examined. All other
relevant evidence mast be considered. In
the appropriate cases, corroboration
may be sought. In cases where the
reasons for the opinion are convincing
and there is no reliable evidence
throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated
testimony of an handwriting expert may
be accepted. There cannot be any
inflexible rule on a matter which in the
ultimate analysis, is no more than a
240 C.C.No.17622/2017
question of testimonial weight. We have
said so much because this is an
argument frequently met with
subordinate courts and sentences torn
out of context from the judgment of this
Court are often flaunted.
470. In view of the above decision, there is no rule
of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallized
into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting
expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially
corroborated. In this case, the evidence of handwriting
expert is substantially corroborated by the oral and
documentary evidences. Hence, the facts of the above
decision and facts of the case on hand are different.
Therefore, the above decision is not applicable to the
case on hand.
471. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied
upon the decision reported in AIR 1963 SCC 1728 in
between Ishwari Prasad Misra Vs. Mohammad Isa,
wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that ; Evidence
given by experts of handwriting can never be conclusive,
because it is, after all, opinion evidence and the evidence
given by the attesting witnesses and the scribe and the
appellant is wholly satisfactory, that evidence proved the
execution of the document by the respondent and the
said evidence does not really need to be corroborated by
the opinion of experts. In this case, the prosecution has
proved the submission of forged documents to the NCTE
241 C.C.No.17622/2017
by the accused No.2 and 3 and the evidence of
handwriting expert is substantially corroborated by the
oral and documentary evidences. Hence, the facts of the
above decision and facts of the case on hand are
different. Therefore, the above decision is not applicable
to the case on hand.
472. As per the prosecution, the criminal act of the
accused No.3 were committed by him outside the
purview of his official duty, hence, no sanction for
prosecution is required. Though, accused No.3 is a
Government servant. But, his criminal acts are outside
the purview of his official duty. Hence, no sanction is
necessary u/Sec.197 of Cr.P.C.
473. In FIR, the P.W.2 shown as accused No.1. But,
as per the charge sheet, she is not prosecuted due to
want of evidence.
474. Thus, on going through the entire oral and
documentary evidence and materials placed before this
Court meticulously, this Court is of the considered view
that the prosecution has established the necessary
ingredients of the offence punishable u/Sec.120 B r/w
Sec.420, 468, 471 and 473 of IPC and the substantive
offences thereof as against the accused No.2 and 3
beyond all reasonable doubt as they have conspired with
each other to obtain the formal recognition for D.El.Ed.,
242 C.C.No.17622/2017
and B.Ed., courses to the accused No.1 institution with
dishonest intention to cheat the NCTE and to obtain the
formal recognition, they have forged the documents and
used the same before the NCTE as genuine documents
and they used the counterfeit seals with an intention to
commit forgery. The accused No.1 is a registered society
and accused No.2 is the Secretary and authorized person
of accused No.1 society and the accused No.2 has
cheated the NCTE in obtaining formal recognition for
D.El.Ed., and B.Ed. Courses in the name of accused
No.1 society. Hence, the accused No.1 society shall be
punished for offence of cheating u/Sec.420 of IPC. The
evidence on record clinchingly establish the commission
of offence punishable u/Sec.120 B r/w Sec.420, 468,
471 and 473 of IPC and the substantive offences thereof
in the matter of obtaining formal recognition for
D.El.Ed., and B.Ed. Courses against the accused No.2
and 3. The evidence on record clearly established the
dishonest intention on the part of accused No.2 and 3 at
the vary inception from the stage of filing the online
applications for the D.El.Ed., and B.Ed. Courses. In this
regard, the evidence on record established clear
circumstances against the accused persons forming
complete chain of circumstances which is consistent to
prove the guilt of the accused persons. Therefore, this
Court is of the considered view that, the prosecution has
proved Point No.1 to 5 beyond all reasonable doubt as
243 C.C.No.17622/2017
against the accused No.2 and 3 and point No.2 beyond
all reasonable doubt as against accused No.1 society.
Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 to 5 in the affirmative.
475. Point No.6: For the reasons discussed in
connection with point No.1 to 5 and findings given
thereon, this Court proceed to pass the following –
ORDER
Acting under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C.
1973, accused No.1 being Soceity is
convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 420 of IPC.
Acting under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C.
1973, accused No.2 and 3 are convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 120 B
r/w Sec.420, 468, 471 and 473 of IPC and
the substantive offences thereof.
The Bail bonds of the accused persons
and their surety stand canceled.
To hear regarding Sentence.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on the computer,
corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the
Open Court on this the 18th day of May, 2026)
[L.J. BHAVANI]
XVII ADDL.CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BANGALORE.
244 C.C.No.17622/2017
ORDERS REGARDING SENTENCE
In this case, the accused No.2 and 3 are convicted
for the offence punishable u/Sec.120 B r/w Sec.420,
468, 471 and 473 of IPC and the substantive offences
thereof. The accused No.1 is a registered society and
accused No.2 is the Secretary and authorized person of
accused No.1 society and the accused No.2 has cheated
the NCTE to obtain the formal recognition for D.El.Ed.,
and B.Ed., courses in the name of accused No.1 society.
Hence, the accused No.1 is convicted for the offence
punishable u/Sec.420 of IPC. Further, the accused No.1
society is a juristic person and only fine has to be
imposed on it.
2. Heard the accused No.2 and 3, their Ld.
Counsels and the Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor regarding
sentence.
3. The Ld. Counsel for accused No.2 has humbly
submitted that, the accused No.2 has faced length trial
and he never violated the bail conditions and he is
working as teacher and there is no victim in this case.
Further, it is submitted that the entire family depending
on the income of the accused No.2 and minimum
punishment may be imposed. Accordingly, prayed for
lenient view in favour of the accused No.2 in the matter
of awarding sentence.
245 C.C.No.17622/2017
4. The Ld. Counsel for accused No.3 has humbly
submitted that, the accused No.3 has faced length trial
and he never violated the bail conditions and he is
working as Head Master and he is aged about 60 years
and he is the bread earner and his son is studying who
is depending on the income of the accsued No.3.
Further, it is submitted that the involvement of accused
No.3 is very less and minimum punishment may be
imposed. Accordingly, prayed for lenient view in favour of
the accused No.3 in the matter of awarding sentence.
5. The accused No.2 and 3 who are before the
Court is also submitted in the way as submitted by their
Ld. Counsels and prayed for lenient approach in their
favour.
6. Per contra, the Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor
has submitted that, the offences against the accused
persons is proved beyond reasonable doubt and the
Court has to consider the nature of the case and gravity
of the offence committed by the accused persons and
also its effect on the society. Accordingly, prayed for
convicting the accused by imposing maximum sentence
and fine permissible under law since it is offences
against the society.
246 C.C.No.17622/2017
7. In the matter of imposing the sentence, Court
has to hear the accused on sentence, consider the
mitigating and aggravating circumstances, gravity of the
offence, amount involved, the purpose of punishment
being imposed, effect of the offence committed on the
society and facts and circumstances of the case under
which the offence took place etc. In the present case on
hand, the accused No.2 and 3 in pursuance of criminal
conspiracy dishonestly obtained the formal recognition
to start D.El.Ed., and B.Ed., courses under accused
No.1 society and to obtain the said recognition, they
forged the documents and used the said documents as
genuine documents and also used the counterfeit seals
with an intension to commit forgery. The mitigating
circumstances expressed by the accused persons are
there is no victim in this case and the involvement of the
accused No.3 only in respect to furnishing the building
plan and they are not convicted of any offence
previously. The aggravating circumstances expressed for
the seriousness of the offence, its effect on the society.
8. The provisions of Probation of Offenders Act is
not applicable to the present case on hand since it is a
offence against the society. Hence, this Court is declined
to release the accused under the provisions of Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958.
247 C.C.No.17622/2017
9. Section 120 B of IPC provides for punishment
for criminal conspiracy and the said offence under
Section 120 B (1) of IPC is punishable in the same
manner as if he abated such offence where no express
provision is made in IPC for punishment of criminal
conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death
imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a
term of two years or upwards and as per Section 120 B
(2) of IPC, the party to a criminal conspiracy other than a
criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as
per Section 120 B (1) of IPC shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term not
exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
10. Section 420 of IPC provides for punishment
for cheating and the said offence is punishable with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years and also liable to pay fine.
11. Section 468 of IPC provides for punishment
for forgery for the purpose of cheating and the said
offence is punishable with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years
and also liable to pay fine.
12. Section 471 of IPC provides for punishment
for using the forged document as genuine and the said
248 C.C.No.17622/2017
offence is punishable in the same manner as if he had
forged such document. Sec.465 of IPC provides for
punishment for forgery and the said offence is
punishable with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to two years or fine or with
both.
13. Section 473 of IPC provides for punishment
for making or possessing counterfeit seals with an
intention to commit forgery and the said offence is
punishable with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years and also liable to
pay fine.
14. The Court has to consider the mitigating
factors which are in favour of the accused No.2 and 3
and aggravating circumstances. There is no material
placed to show that the accused No.2 and 3 are having
any criminal antecedents. As submitted by the Ld.
Counsel for the accused No.2 and 3, it is noticed that,
the accused No.2 and 3 are the bread earners and their
family entirely depending upon their income. They have
appeared before the Court to face the trial of this case
since 2016 for long years and the offence leveled against
accused persons are not punishable with capital
punishment. However, the submission made by the Ld.
Sr. Public Prosecutor is also to be taken into
consideration. Hence, having considered the facts and
249 C.C.No.17622/2017
circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the
offences, its effect on the society, the purpose of the
punishment, aggravating and mitigating circumstances
of the case, this Court proceed to pass the following ;
ORDER
The accused No.1 is convicted for
the offence punishable under Section
420 of IPC and shall pay fine of
Rs.5,000/-.
The accused No.2 and 3 are
convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 120 B r/w Sec.420, 468,
471 and 473 of IPC and they are
sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year
and shall also pay fine of Rs.5,000/-
each and in default of payment of fine
amount, they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three
months.
The accused No.2 and 3 are
convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 420 of IPC and they are
sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year
and shall also pay fine of Rs.5,000/-
each and in default of payment of fine
amount, they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three
months.
The accused No.2 and 3 are
convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 468 of IPC and they are
sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year
250 C.C.No.17622/2017
and shall also pay fine of Rs.5,000/-
each and in default of payment of fine
amount, they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three
months.
The accused No.2 and 3 are
convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 471 of IPC and they are
sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six
months.
The accused No.2 and 3 are
convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 473 of IPC and they are
sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year
and shall also pay fine of Rs.5,000/-
each and in default of payment of fine
amount, they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three
months.
The sentences ordered shall run
concurrently.
Office to supply of the free copy of
the judgment to the accused No.2 and 3
forthwith.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on the
computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me
in the Open Court on this the 18th day of May, 2026)
[L.J. BHAVANI]
XVII ADDL.CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BANGALORE.
251 C.C.No.17622/2017
-: ANNEXURE :-
I. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW 1 : Smt. Uma Prasanna Kumar
PW 2 : Smt. P. Revathy Reddy
PW 3 : Sri. K. Anandan
PW 4 : Sri. K. Sreedhar Rao
PW 5 : Sri. Upendra Rao
PW 6 : Sri. Sanjay Gupta
PW 7 : Sri. V. Ashok Kumar
PW 8 : Sri. Lakshminarasimhaiah
PW 9 : Sri. B. Thirupalu
PW 10: Sri. Suryanarayana .E
PW 11: Sri. P. Gangadhar
PW 12: Sri. P. Venugopala Gupta
PW 13: Sri. D. Hussain Sahib
PW 14: Sri. D. Thirumala Reddy
PW 15: Sri. M. Jameed Ahmed
PW 16: Sri. T.G. Reddy
PW 17: Sri. B. Phaniswara Raju
PW 18 : Sri. K. Anjayya
PW 19: Sri. P. Chandrayudu
PW 20: Sri. V. Premanandam
PW 21: Sri. V. Sathyanarayana
PW 22: Sri. K. Munaiah
PW 23: Sri. Dr. K. Pandurangaswamy
PW 24: Sri. P. Ashok Kumar Reddy
PW 25: Smt. K. Lakshmidevi
252 C.C.No.17622/2017
PW 26: Sri. M. Janardhana Charyulu
PW 27: Smt. C. Anjanee Devi
PW 28: Sri. G. Ramana Reddy
PW 29: Sri. C. Phani Bhushan
PW 30: Sri. M. Mallikarjun
PW 31: Smt. K. Madavi Latha
PW 32: Sri. K. V. Jaganathareddy
PW 33: Sri. S. Ramesh
PW 34: Sri. V. N. Raju
PW 35: Sri. S. Subramanya
PW 36: Sri. P. Venugopala Rao
II. List of witnesses examined for the defence :-
-NIL-
III. Documents exhibited on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P-1 : Sprial-Bound Book titled as
"SRCAPP-3400-2" of Sree Sarada
D.EI.Ed College, A.P.
Ex.P-2 : Sprial-Bound Book titled as
"SRCAPP-3400-1" of Sree Sarada
D.EI.Ed College, A.P.
Ex.P-3 : File titled as National Council for
Teacher Education of 2016-2017-
DOR-18.06.2015 of Sree Sarada
D.EI.Ed College, A.P
Ex.P-4 : Sprial-Bound Book titled as
"SRCAPP-3401-1"of Sree Sarada
B.Ed College, A.P.
253 C.C.No.17622/2017
Ex.P-5 : File titled as National Council for
Teacher Education of 2016-2017-
DOR-18.06.2015 of Sree Sarada
B.Ed College, A.P
Ex.P-6 : Sprial-Bound Book titled as "The
Gazette of India" containing copies
of Notification.
Ex.P-7 : Register titled as "NCTE-SRO-SRC
Meeting Attendance Register.
Ex.P-8 : Booklet of Decision of 313 Emergent
Meeting of SRC-NCTE
Ex.P-9 : File of Decision of 296th Meeting of
SRC-NCTE
Ex.P-10 : File of Decision of 303rd Meeting of
SRC-NCTEEx.P-11 : File of Decision of 304th Meeting of
SRC-NCTEEx.P-12 : File of Decision of 308th Meeting of
SRC-NCTEEx.P-13 : File of Decision of 312th Meeting of
SRC-NCTEEx.P-14 : File of Decision of 313th Meeting of
SRC-NCTEEx.P-15 : File of Decision of 303rd Meeting of
SRC-NCTE Dt:15.02.2016Ex.P-16 : File of Decision of 308th Meeting of
SRC-NCTE Dt:28/29/30.02.2016
254 C.C.No.17622/2017Ex.P-17 : File of Decision of 312th Meeting of
SRC-NCTE Dt:28/29.04.2016Ex.P-18 : File of Decision of 314th Meeting of
SRC-NCTE Dt:02/03.05.2016Ex.P-19 to 26 : 8 number Color Photographs of
Sree Sarada D.EI.Ed & B. Ed
CollegesEx.P-27 : Register of Soundness Certificate of
Singanamala Mandal Praja
ParishadEx.P-28 : Search List Dt: 05.07.2016
Ex.P-29 : Spot Observation Mahazar Dt:
05.07.2016
Ex.P-30 : Spot Rough Sketch
Ex.P-31 : Letter Dt: 02.01.2017
Ex.P-32 : Letter Dt. 02.05.2016
Ex.P-33 : Gazzette Publication Order
Dt.02.05.2016Ex.P-34 : Certificate U/s. 65-B of the Indian
Evidence ActEx.P-35 : Letter dt: 25.10.2016
Ex.P-36 : Letter Dt. 25.10.2016
Ex.P-37 : Photocopy of Search List
dt:05.07.2016
255 C.C.No.17622/2017Ex.P-38 : Photo copy of Spot Observation
Mahazar dt: 05.07.2016Ex.P-39 : Original Building Plan
Ex.P-40 : Letter dt:25.10.2016
Ex.P-41 : Report regarding inspection of site
dt:19.10.2016Ex.P-42 : Copy of Field Measurement Sketch
Ex.P-43 : 02 Photographs
Ex.P-44 : Co-ordinate Sketch of Field Survey
No.241Ex.P-45 : Adangal Extract of Sy. no.241
issued by V.R.O.Ex.P-46 : Report of Village Revenue Officer to
TahasildarEx.P-47 : Re-settlement Register
Ex.P-48 : Letter of Sri. Malola regarding
conversion of land Sy. No.241/2.
Ex.P-49 : Receipt Memo Dt: 15.10.2016
Ex.P-50 : Letter dt: 26.06.2015
Ex.P-51 : Letter dt:06.10.2016
Ex.P-52 : Applications for issuance of E.C.
Ex.P-53 : Statement of Encumbrance of
Property
256 C.C.No.17622/2017
Ex.P-54 : Statement of Encumbrance of
property
Ex.P-55 : Certified copy of Gift deed of
Sharada Education Society
executed by Sheshadri Reddy
Ex.P-56 : Original Letter 04.10.2016
Ex.P-57 : Attested copy of the letter dt.
21.05.2007
Ex.P-58 : Letter Dt.07.10.2016
Ex.P-59 : No Objection Certificate from
SriKrishnadevaraya
University, A.P dt: 29.05.2015
Ex.P-60 : Application for No Objection
Certificate dt: 25.05.2015
Ex.P-61 : Copies of Certificate of Registration
Ex.P-62 : Original Letter dt: 18.04.2016
Ex.P-63 : Letter 27.10.2016
Ex.P-64 : Check List for issue of NOC
Ex.P-65 : Copy of Proceedings of the
Director, State Council of
Education Research and Training
Ap., Hyderabad Dt. 25.05.2015
Ex.P-66 : Attested copy of proceedings of
Director of SCERT
Ex.P-67 : Original of proceedings of
Director of SCERT
257 C.C.No.17622/2017
Ex.P-68 : Approved Staff List of D.Ed Course
of Sree Sharada Education Society
Ex.P-69 : Attested copy of the Affiliation of
Pvt. D.Ed Colleges for the year
2016-17- Renewal Scrutiny Report
of Applications
Ex.P-70 : Letter dt: 12.05.2016
Ex.P-71 : Attested copy of the Inspection
Report of Fresh Affiliation for
Acadamic Year 2016-17 ,
dt:12.05.2016
Ex.P-72 : Letter of recommendation
Ex.P-73 : Attested copy of order Dt:
26.07.2016
Ex.P-74 : Letter dt: 13.10.2016
Ex.P-75 : Statement Portion of CW-23 U/s
161 of Cr.P.CEx.P-76 : Statement Portion of CW-24 U/s
161 of Cr.P.CEx.P-77 : Letter dt: 13.10.2016
Ex.P-78 : Attested copy of Proceedings of the
SCERT dt: 25.05.2015Ex.P-79 : Attested copy of Proceedings of the
SCERT dt. 03.03.2016Ex.P-80 : Proceedings of the
SCERT dt: 16.03.2016
258 C.C.No.17622/2017Ex.P-81 : Statement Portion of CW-27 U/s.
161 of Cr.P.C
Ex.P-82 : Letter dt: 15.05.2017
Ex.P-83 : Attested copy of List of Candidates
name and final list of pvt. D.Ed
Colleges with total intake of seatsEx.P-84 : Copies of File of Certificate of
RegistrationEx.P-85 : Statement Portion of CW-29 U/s
161 of Cr.P.CEx.P-86 : Statement Portion of CW-33 U/s
161 of Cr.P.CEx.P-87 : Bunch of documents such as
Format of Affidavit, Inspection
Report, Visiting Team Report, etcEx.P-88 : Bunch of documents such as sale
deeds, certificate of registration of
Sharada Education SocietyEx.P-89 : Search List Dt: 05.07.2016
Ex.P-90 : Statement Portion of CW-32 U/s
161 of Cr.P.CEx.P-91 : Search List Dt: 05.07.2016
Ex.P-92 : F.I.R. dt: 24.06.2016
Ex.P-93 : Search List Dt: 05.05.2017
Ex.P-94 : File of copies of Correspondence of
Sri. Sarada Educational Rural
259 C.C.No.17622/2017Development and Animal
Welfare SocietyEx.P-95 : Letter from Mandal Education
Officer, Singanamala ,
Ananthapuramu bearing no.
MEO-MRC-SINGANAMALA/2015
Ex.P-96 : Spiral Bound booklet containing
copies of Sree Sarada B.Ed College
Ex.P-97 : Spiral Bound booklet containing
copies of Sree Sarada D.EI.ED
College
Ex.P-98 : Spiral Bound booklet containing
copies of Sree Sarada D.Ed
College, Staff Profile
Ex.P-99 : Register titled as ” Teachers
Attendance Register” of Sree Sarada
Vidyaniketan, Akuledu Village
Ex.P-100 : Letter dt:04.11.2016
Ex.P-101 : Receipt Memo dt: 05.05.2017
Ex.P-102 : Receipt Memo dt: 09.05.2017
Ex.P-103 : Seizure Memo dt: 06.05.2017
Ex.P-104 : Copies of List of candidates, college
wise final allotment list
Ex.P-105 : Copies of Final Admission Letters
Ex.P-106 : Attendance Register of Students of
D.E1.Ed.Course of Sree Sarada
D.E1.Ed College
260 C.C.No.17622/2017
Ex.P-107 : Photocopy of SBI Passbook of A/c.
No.30760034394
Ex.P-108 : Public Notice Of NCTE Dt:
27.02.2015 & dt: 30.05.2015
Ex.P-109 : Receipt Memo Dt: 15.10.2016
Ex.P-110 : Receipt Memo Dt: 19.10.2016
Ex.P-111 : Seal Impression of Seized Rubber
StampsEx.P-112 : Specimen handwriting/signature of
Sri. K. RajasekharEx.P-113 : Specimen handwriting/signature of
Sri. S. Sheshadri ReddyEx.P-114 : Letter from CFSL
along with Examination
Report/Opinion[L.J. BHAVANI]
XVII ADDL.CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BANGALORE.
