CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Thursday upheld the CBI probe against members of the Central Admission Committee (CENTAC) in Puducherry into the alleged irregularities in the admission of 65 students in PG courses in local medical college.
Justice G Jaichandran upheld the probe while dismissing writ petitions from K V Raman, B R Babu, V Govindaraj, K Palaniraja and M Jonathan Daniel.
They sought to quash an FIR dated September 16, 2017 of the CBI registered for alleged offences under Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and 420 (cheating) of IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.
The allegation against them was that they had admitted 65 students in PG courses run by various private institutions under the management quota, who were not eligible otherwise. Pursuant to the conspiracy hatched by the petitioners and managements of private colleges, the ineligible candidates had been admitted. They had violated the procedure and the directions of the Central and Puducherry governments, MCI and that of the SC in respect of admissions.
Their senior counsel V T Gopalan submitted that the Union Territory had its own police force to take care of its law and order. Unless the government gives its consent to the CBI to exercise the power and jurisdiction, the agency cannot register a case for the alleged offences, which took place exclusively within the UT, he argued.
Accepting the submissions of counsel representing students who were denied admission, Justice Jaichandran said the FIR had been registered for offences under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act. The PC Act extends to the whole of India, except Jammu and Kashmir, and applies to all citizens living in India and outside. “So in this light, the court holds that the CBI has territorial jurisdiction over the Union Territory by virtue of Section 2(2) and Section 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act.
To register and investigate the offences notified under Section 3 of the Act, the consent of the UT is not required. Furthermore, the cognisable offence was brought to the notice of the CBI, which has parallel jurisdiction to notify the offences.