In a stinging assessment of the prosecution case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court Thursday set aside the conviction of eight persons in a 1998 teacher recruitment ‘scam’, holding that the case was riddled with missing links and hostile witnesses. The court observed that these rendered the prosecution’s case “highly suspicious”.
Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, allowing the criminal appeals, set aside the August 12, 2010 judgment of the First Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The case arose from the recruitment of 207 Shikshak Karmi Grade-III teachers in Sanwer Janpad Panchayat in 1998. Of the 2,539 applications received, 1,796 candidates appeared for interviews conducted between June 27 and July 18, 1998, after which 207 candidates were selected.
The Lokayukta’s Special Police Establishment subsequently received information alleging corruption and nepotism in the selection. The prosecution alleged that some members of the selection committee had awarded maximum interview marks to their relatives and that other members, along with the CEO and Block Education Officer, had assisted in the alleged manipulation. The appellants had been sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs 10,000 each, with a further six months’ rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine.
The court held that “nearly every key complainant and candidate turned hostile during the trial”.
“They categorically denied making complaints or testified that their signatures were obtained under the direction of Lokayukta Police officers. When the makers of the complaints disown the very foundational documents, the genesis of the prosecution’s case is rendered highly suspicious,” the court said.
‘Wrongly mixed administrative fault, criminal offence’
The trial court had convicted the appellants primarily because they did not declare their relationships with the candidates. The high court found that “the prosecution has wrongly mixed an administrative fault with a criminal offence.”
“If a panchayat member uses his position to get a job for a relative, he can be removed from his post under the Panchayat Act. But this action does not automatically make it a crime under the Prevention of Corruption Act. For a criminal conviction, the prosecution must prove that the accused had a clear dishonest intention and actually took a bribe or financial reward. A careful look at the evidence shows no proof that the appellants asked for or received any money or financial gain. Favouring family members is wrong and can lead to strict departmental action, but it is not enough to prove a crime,” the court opined.
The court said that giving marks in an interview “is a matter of personal judgment”.
“The prosecution did not bring any proof to show that the selected candidates were unfit or lacked merit for the job,” the court said.
The documents used by the police to prove the family relationships are also legally weak, the court said.
“The police relied on voter lists and family registers. However, the Tehsildar admitted during questioning that he could not verify these documents because the police only showed photocopies, not the original records. It is highly unsafe and against the law to convict the appellants based only on unverified photocopies when the main witnesses have turned hostile,” the court said.
“The case has too many missing links. The prosecution could not prove any dishonest intention, the sanction for prosecution was legally wrong, the documents used were tampered photocopies, and the main witnesses refused to support the police story. Because of these serious doubts, the trial court’s decision is legally incorrect and must be set aside,” the court said.
On allegations that the CEO, Ashok Kumar Pandey, and BEO Vijay Rege did not ensure transparency, the court held that “Imposing vicarious criminal liability upon the CEO and BEO for the independent scoring patterns of other committee members is legally impermissible.”
The court held that independent experts on the committee “found the process transparent and free of coercion; the allegation that the entire committee functioned as a corrupt syndicate falls flat”. “The prosecution cannot disown the testimony of its own independent witnesses”, the court said.
The court held that the sanction to prosecute these public servants was done “without independent application of mind to the relevant evidentiary material”.
