Nagpur: Expressing concern over the increasing cases of fraud for admission to medical courses, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court recently referred to the desperation on the part of the parents to see their children get admitted to professional course like medicines.
Such observations came from the HC bench while it dismissed a plea filed by one Dr Lokpriya Sakhare, assistant professor at a Government Medical College who was accused of being involved in such a fraud case, where the parents of a medical aspirant were duped of Rs 41 lakh in this regard.
"This case has a genesis of how parents are desperate to see that their progeny/child/ward is admitted in professional course like medicines and for that there can be allurement by the sharks which are having a free swing in the society and they always look for their pray and such parents are the easiest one," the HC bench comprising of Justice V.M. Deshpande and Justice Amit B. Borkar noted while dismissing the plea.
Dr. Shilpa Suresh Dhekle, a Medical Practitioner at Pune had filed an FIR with Police Station, Ajni, Nagpur against the petitioner doctor, Dr. Lokpriya Uddhav Sakhare.
The court noted that Dr. Dhekle wished to see her daughter get admitted to a medical course in government medical college. She along with her husband were allured by the persons named in the first information report to part with Rs.41,00,000/- with an assurance that her daughter will get admission in Government Medical College.
The FIR had named the petitioner doctor as well, who is the Assistant Professor at a Government Medical College and has been described as "Sakhare Mama" in the FIR.
After registration of the crime, apprehending his arrest, the petitioner doctor approached before the learned Judge of the trial Court by moving an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, he was unsuccessful.
Therefore, he approached to this Court by filing an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Single Judge's order protected him from arrest.
Meanwhile, a proposal was submitted by the Economic Offences Wing to the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime (MCOC) Act, 1999 seeking accord of sanction to invoke the provisions of the MCOC Act against the petitioner doctor and the Director General of Police sanctioned the same. Following this, challenging the sanction order, the petitioner doctor approached the High Court.
It was the contention of the petitioner doctor that he is not the accused in any of the offences which are registered against the syndicate though the petitioner is shown as one of the members of the said syndicate. He submitted that two charge-sheets against the present petitioner are not filed and therefore, the sanction granted by the authority needs to be set aside.
In this context, the counsel for the petitioner referred to the Apex Court judgment in the case of Mahipal Singh .vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another.
On the other hand, the counsel for the government, the public prosecutor relied upon the detailed reply filed on behalf of the respondents and also pointed out the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kavita Lankesh .vs. State of Karnatak and others.
Taking note of the submissions made by both the parties, the court referred to the affidavit submitted by one Shri Nilesh Shriram Palve, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sitabuldi Division, Nagpur. In his affidavit, he specifically pointed out the Court that during the course of investigation, the investigating agency had found various incriminating material against the petitioner doctor.
As per the affidavit, the investigating agency has collected continuous WhatsApp chat that happened in between the petitioner and the gang leader of the syndicate, whose name appeared in the impugned order i.e. Chandrashekhar Atram. The investigating agency had also procured the screen shots of WhatsApp chating with the petitioner which showed that he was calling with the syndicate leader Shri Chandrashekhar Atram.
This particular material was before the sanctioning authority. Therefore, the sanctioning authority, had the advantage of going through the material collected during the course of the investigation to formulate the opinion as to whether the sanction is required to be granted or not.
Referring to the sanction order, the court noted that it was granted by the sanctioning authority for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 4 of the MCOC Act. Noting that this matter was up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Kavita Lankesh's case, the HC bench noted, "In view of the final word from the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 26 in Kavita's case (supra) in respect of the offence under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 4 of the MCOC Act, we are of the view that the present petition is nothing but to see that the investigation is stalled and to create various hurdles in further investigation in very serious offence."
"At this stage, it would not be proper on the part of the Court to make any comment on the entire prosecution case inasmuch as free hand will have to be given to the Investigating Officer and the prosecuting agency to bring on record the other victims also."
Dismissing the plea by the doctor, the bench clarified, "We are of the view that the purpose of the petition was to point out that there is no nexus in between the petitioner and crime syndicate. However, from the reply filed by the respondents and the material which available with the prosecuting agency as stated in paragraph 7 of the reply, we are of the view that at least at this stage there cannot be any doubt in anyone's mind that there is nexus of the present petitioner with the crime syndicate."
To read the court order, click on the link below.
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.