Meghalaya High Court: The present petition was filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), seeking to quash the order passed by the Special Judge (CBI), whereby the discharge application of the two accused persons, i.e., former Education Minister, Meghalaya and the former Director, Directorate of Elementary and Mass Education, Shillong was dismissed. A Single Judge Bench of I.P. Mukerji CJ. criticized the delay in prosecuting a criminal case and opined that it was against the fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution to lead a peaceful life free of mental anxiety caused by pendency of a criminal proceeding. The Court stated that, the rate at which the present case was proceeding, examination of all witnesses might take up the entirety of the remaining life of the accused. Thus, the Court set aside the order and quashed the charges against the accused persons.
Background
In the present case, the State started the recruitment process for or the appointment of Assistant Teachers in the Lower Primary Schools in 2008. A part of its selection process related to Shillong, Jowai, Amlarem, Tura and Dadenggre, became the subject of the complaint.
An FIR was lodged under Section 408 of the Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’) in July 2011 against all the three accused persons, i.e., former Education Minister, the former Director and the former Deputy Director of Directorate of Elementary and Mass Education, Shillong.
The accusation was that they had conspired with one another, and manipulated the score sheets and other results of the selection process so that their favored persons could get the appointments, because of which many eligible and successful candidates in the selection process were left out. It was alleged that the original score sheets were different, and white ink was used to erase the marks and substitute them by higher or lower marks to accommodate the preferred candidates and to remove the undesirable ones. The former Education Minister was accused of using her influence as minister to furnish slips to the officers preparing the tabulation sheets directing alteration of marks.
The Court, in November 2017, transferred the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) which took two and a half years to file a chargesheet and eventually included Sections 120-B read with 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 of the IPC. Out of 521, candidature of 246 persons was cancelled on the ground that their selection was tainted.
Analysis and Decision
Upon examining the score sheets, merit list and break-up of marks, the Court observed that the contents of all three documents showing various levels in tabulation of results were signed by the same five officials. Further, the Court stated that the documents produced as evidence could not suggest any specific direction for alteration of marks as they were not original, thus, there was no document showing interpolation or any application of white ink for erasing the marks on record as well as no further evidence that could link those slips with the charge of manipulation of results.
The Court opined that the prosecution failed to establish even a prima facie case from where a reasonable suspicion could have arisen of interpolation of the score sheets by the accused, thus, charges against each of them could not be sustained.
Further, the Court stated the selection process was in 2008 and FIR was lodged in 2011 and yet nothing moved significantly in prosecuting the accused, as only 28 out of 181 witnesses had been examined till now. The Court criticized such enormous delay in prosecuting a criminal case and opined that it was against the fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution to lead a peaceful life free of mental anxiety caused by pendency of a criminal proceeding.
The Court had set aside the order passed by the Special Judge (CBI) considering that it could take up the entirety of the remaining life of the accused for concluding examination of all witnesses. Accordingly, the Court quashed criminal proceedings against all three accused.
[CBI v. M. Ampareen Lyngdoh, 2025 SCC OnLine Megh 977, decided on 4-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: N. Mozika, DSGI, K. Chisa, Adv., K. Gurung, Adv.,
For the Respondents: S. Khurshid, Sr. Adv., S. Ain, Adv., R. Goyal, Adv., K. Paul, Sr Adv., S. Panthi, Adv., B. Snaitang, Adv., S. Chanda, Adv., C.C.T. Sangma, Adv.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
