Khushi Gupta
Published on: May 27, 2022 at 18:24 IST
The Patna High Court has refused to quash the FIR registered against former Vice Chancellor (VC) of Magadh University Rajendra Prasad alias Dr. Rajendra Prasad in connection with a corruption case.
Justice Ashutosh Kumar also dismissed his plea for Anticipatory Bail and ordered, “If the petitioner surrenders before the Special Court and makes an application for bail, the petition shall be considered on its merits without prejudice to any remarks made in this order.”
A case was registered against Prasad under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy to commit offence), Section 420 (forgery) of the IPC and various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He is said to have bypassed all the rules and procedural formalities in his capacity as Vice-Chancellor of the University, for making purchases of papers and other stationary items from different persons, thereby causing losses to the State ex-chequer as also to the University.
The FIR was sought to be quashed on the sole ground that it is in derogation of the newly added Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
It was alleged that the Petitioner, while working as Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, had entered into a criminal conspiracy.
“The reasons for prosecuting the petitioner is that such purchases worth several crores were made by adopting a procedure, which was arbitrary and with the sole purpose of getting undue advantage to himself.”
“There was no requisition or tender and that the materials, in derogation of the financial rules, were not procured through GEM. No procedural formalities were complied with, despite the petitioner being apprised of such requirements,” the Court noted in its order.
The Petitioner’s Senior Advocate Jitendra Singh argued that all the offences, which are alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner, are acts which are relatable to the official functions and duties of a Vice- Chancellor.
The Court noted that, “The Prima Facie the offences alleged against the petitioner do not come within the protective cover of Section 17(A) of the PC Act, 1988”.
The Court observed in the order that Respondent SVU has made out a case for custodial interrogation of the Petitioner.