Built In Jurisdiction Of The High Court (S 482 Of CrPC) Cannot Be Invoked To Overthrow The Bar Of Review (S 362 OF CrPC): Dr Sanjeev Kumar Rasania Vs CBI And Ors

DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
03/01/2022

BENCH:
JUSTICE MR. SUBRAMANIOM PRASAD

PARTIES:
PETITIONER: DR. SANJEEV KUMAR RASANIA
RESPONDENT: CBI & OTHERS

SUBJECT

In this case, the Court issued an order under Section 482 CrPC that overrides the bar imposed according to Section 362 CrPC.

OVERVIEW

1. An alleged conspiracy between officials from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and others led to the renewal of authorization for admission of 100 applicants to the MBBS program despite obvious breaches of MCI norms.
2. On July 14, 2006, the MHFW authorized the first batch of 100 MBBS students. Next, a 100-student MCI was tested on August 17th, 2008.
3. In addition to breaking regulations, MCI's executive (referred to as the "EC") The police should be contacted. FIRs were issued. A few days later, on August 19, 2008, the EC recommended that the Union Government must not renew licenses for the third 100 children.
4. This meant that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare instructed the College not to renew its license. It was decided on September 26, 2008, by the Supreme Court that the facilities were insufficient even for a decreased student intake.
5. The MoHFW renewed the third batch of 100 students for the 2008-2009 academic year after a Central Team visit on September 25, 2008.
6. The professor's position was provided on the guarantee of the college administration. Five days later, on October 1, 2008, MCI verified the substandard conditions. The EU Government revoked September 26, 2008, But the Union Government did nothing. An FIR claimed that theMoHFW officials coordinated with the College's chairman and others to get admission.
7. The CBI's first accused was Rohilkhand Educational Trust's Dr. Keshav Kumar Agrawal, followed by Cabinet Secretary KVS Rao and then-Union Health Minister Dr.AmbumaniRamadoss. An alleged criminal conspiracy involving MoHFW staff and College authorities was charged.
8. After forming the Central Team without permission on September 25, 2008, Accused No. 2 (Petitioner) allegedly investigated and reported on September 26, 2008. Pre/para and clinical facilities were adequate, and MCI-required medical and paramedical deficiencies had been resolved.
9. To disguise glaring weaknesses, the study grouped sub-categories together to portray Accused Nos. 4 and 5 (Petitioner above). A second permit contradicted a Supreme Court order the same day, implying inadequate facilities. Assistant General wrote to Secretary MoHFW on October 4, 2008, opposing the Union Government's intention to deploy a Central Team.
10. Separating the findings between Central Teams and MCI Inspecting Teams, he wrote to then-Union Minister (Accused No. 3). On October 13, 2008, then-Lt. ASG announced that a new team was constituted and the investigation was videotaped. This time, the Central Team visited the College on October 20, 2008. On October 24, 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the earlier approval. The Ld. Special Judge removed Accused Nos. 4 and 5 (Petitioner) from the case on October 7, 2015.
11. The CBI purportedly acquired videotapes from each of the defendants, prompting the Ld. Trial Court to rehear the parties. The Supreme Court refused an appeal of a remand order. indicating that all necessary papers have been handed over to CBI, ACI, New Delhi (as per letter dated 23.09.2019).
12. No such CD was found, according to retired Inspector Surendra Rai. A videography CD/cassette was also missing on September 28, 2020. MCI had not evaluated it on October 20, 2008 (MCI-34(41)(Gen)/2019-Med/187380). A video of the 20.10.2008 inspection had been requested by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, HOD Surgical AIIMS, New Delhi. But further information was anticipated.
13. Inspecting film was seen by Drs. Rajendra Singh and Arvindan Nair. They claimed that the action was brought based on a September 25, 2008, inspection and not on October 20, 2008 inspection. The CBI requested to modify the judgment dated 29.07.2019 since filming was not proven. On February 23, 2021, this Court denied the CBI's appeal. According to Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Petitioner (Accused No.5) had requested a stay of the proceedings.

LEGAL PROVISION

Section 482 CrPC - Quashing of FIR

Section 362 CrPC - Court not to alter judgment.

ISSUE

Whether the Court may issue an order under Section 482 CrPC overriding the bar imposed under Section 362 CrPC?

JUDGMENT

1. The Court struck aside the Ld. Trial Court's order on charge dated 07.10.2015, citing the CBI's seizure of videotape of the Central Team's inspection. On remand, the Court directed the accused to examine the videotape.
2. The videography was key evidence, as it was mentioned in the witness's testimony. The CBI subsequently submitted an affidavit with the learned Trial Court stating that it did not hold the videotape and had made no inquiries into its existence.
3. This was because the claimed incident occurred on September 26, 2008, but the inspection was videotaped on October 20, 2008. Affirming the CBI's request to modify a common judgement dated 29.07.2019, the Court held that the CBI's plea for modification of the common judgement of 29.07.2019 was refused.
4. Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not override the 362 Cr.P.C. bar. A review was not permitted under Section 362 Cr.P.C. In accordance with Section 482 of the CrPC, only the Supreme Court was empowered to overturn the 29.07.2019 verdict.In accordance with the former Ld. ASG's direction, the Central Team inspection on October 20, 2008, was videotaped. The CBI did not oppose the videotape's existence or possession.
5. The filming had been referenced often in the files.
6. On October 13, 2008, the Ld. ASG asked that due to the disparity between the MCI-deputed team's and the Central Team's findings, a new inspection team be formed, and their inspection be videotaped.
7. He admitted the footage's existence in his testimony. When the CBI came before this Court prior to the 29.07.2019 common ruling, it did not dispute the existence of the footage and claimed it was not charged. In accordance with the CBI's Affidavit dated 19.10.2020, MCI and MoHFW did not seize any such CD, tape, or video.
8. A team of three individuals from the MoHFW conducted the only inspection on October 20, 2008, contrary to the Affidavit dated October 19, 2020. Dr. Anurag Srivastava notified the CBI about the inspection visit through a letter dated 11.09.2020. Dr. Srivastava was vague. Drs. Singh and Nair did not answer.
9. The aforesaid evidence, which the Court had thoroughly examined, supported the assumption that the videotape was either lost or concealed. An investigation must confess fault in both circumstances.
10. Contradictions in claims of videography's existence and ownership were rare. The Section Officer's statement and affidavit confirmed the filming.
11. Even though the tape was missing, the CBI did not confiscate the notes recorded at the time of recording. Thus, the court stated that this led to a possible impropriety in the situation. The court then said that the proceduremust be completed in six weeks. After that, the findings must be revealed. And hence discarded the plea.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Court was able to only use its power u/s Section 482 in the context of a rapidly shifting situation, as explained above. Regardless of the other circumstances, the decision entered according to Section 362 is functus officio, which meant that the Court was unable to overcome the bar to review the judgment.