Tuesday, October 20, 2015
In an Order on Charge, CBI Court Delhi discharged Dr.S.K. Rasania and Dr.Vindu Amithabh in a case pending for framing of charges. An article in this regard was published on the Quality of Medical Education Group after the Hon’ble SC judgment dated 6th Sept 2013. 
The case related to abuse of power by various authorities of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Union of India, including then Union Helath Minister and Deputy Secretary and Chairman of Medical College in Barielly, who is presently also member of the Medical Council of India along with two doctors, Dr.S.K. Rasania and Dr.Vindu Amithabh who was asked to inspect the college became innocent victim of criminal conspiracy.
Facts of the Case:
Brief facts of the case as per chargesheet are that Rohilkhand Medical College Bareilly run by Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust Bareilly since 2006 under the Chairmanship of accused Dr.Keshav Kumar Aggarwal. [Para 3] 
The first approval of the Central Govt U/s 10(A) of the IMC Act for establishment of the medical college was accorded initially for a period of one year in July 2006 with annual intake of 100 students of MBBS for academic section 2006-2007. [Para 3]
Based on the CBI Court order of Charge dated 7th Oct 2015 [R-2] case details are as follows:
Transfer of Case from Lucknow to Delhi:
The investigation in the present case was conducted by Lucknow Branch of CBI and after conclusion of investigation the chargesheet was also filed before Ld. Spl. Judge, CBI Lucknow, however during the pendency of the proceedings before the Ld. Spl. Judge CBI Lucknow, a transfer petition was filed by accused KVS Rao in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. [Para 1]
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 10.03.14 transferred this case to this court, to be heard with the connected criminal case titled as “CBI vs. Dr. Ambumani Ramadoss and Ors.” [Para 1]
CBI court commented that at the outset it was found that investigation conducted in the case titled “CBI vs. Dr. Ambumani Ramadoss & Ors” was far more exhaustive and comprehensive than in the present case. [Para 1]
Issue of Charge sheet:
Present charge sheet was filed against alleged five accused:
1. Dr.Keshav Kumar Aggarwal, Chairman Rohilkhand Education Trust,
2. K.V.S Rao, Dy. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
3. Ambumani Ramadoss former Union Minister for Health and Family Welfare
4. Dr. Vindu Amitabh, Sr. Specialist and Head of Department, (Nephrology) VM Medical College and Hospital, New Delhi
5. Dr. Sanjiv Kumar Rasania, Professor of Community Medicine VM Medical College and Hospital, New Delhi
It was for commission of offences U/s 120B IPC r/w section 420/468/471 IPC and section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988. [Para 2]
Defense of the Doctors (MCI Inspectors/Assessors):
Ld. Counsel for Dr. Vindu Amitabh and Dr. S.K. Rasania submited:
· That the present accused has nothing to do with the Ministry nor associated with the college, and cannot be said to be part of any conspiracy.
· That accused persons inspected the college on the sudden direction by the Medical superintendent without any proper communication of procedure for inspection.
· That with their knowledge whatever possible they have done and acted upon the information/ documents supplied by the college.
· That there is no evidence on record that the accused acted in conspiracy with the other accused persons.
· That the accused persons are senior doctors and suffering in the present case due to false implication by the CBI. Ld. Counsel also filed the written submissions. [Para 29]
It was alleged that:
· They didn’t find shortage of faculty
· They did not ask the faculty members whether they are full timers or part timers
· That they claimed to have personally inspected the wards however, during investigation on physical verification of 14 patients on random basis 9 of them were found fake or non existent
· The declaration forms accepted by the inspected team members containing the documents like ration cards etc of some of the faculty members which were also found to be fake, and the form 16 were also found not issued by the college to them.
Issue of Shortage of Faculty & Method of Calculation
According to chargesheet both the accused in the inspection report pointed out the shortage of only two (less than 2% teaching faculty) out of required 114. IO in chargesheet made the calculation of the shortage on its own and found the shortage of faculty 17, however on the directions of this court, CBI filed a fresh calculation through an expert which also do not in fact dispute the calculation arrived by these accused persons. [Para 72]
Issue of Part time or full time faculty, Declaration Form and Fake Documents
The other allegations against these accused were that they did not ask the faculty members whether they were full timers or part timers namely, Dr.Harbir Singh Sodhi, Dr.Anil Madan, Dr. Virender Kumar Sinha, Dr.Zamaluddin and Dr. Shiv Nath Banarjee.
It was further alleged against these accused that they claimed to have personally inspected the wards however, during investigation on physical verification of 14 patients on random basis 9 of them were found fake or nonexistent. Furthermore, the declaration forms accepted by the inspected team members containing the documents like ration cards etc of some of the faculty members which were also found to be fake, and the form 16 were also found not issued by the college to them. [Para 73]
CBI Court Observations:
Court noted that admittedly, the present accused do not found to have any connection with the Ministry nor with accused KVS Rao or Dr. Ambumani Ramadoss. They went for inspection on immediate call by medical Superintendent in the afternoon of 24.09.08. It was submitted that in the evening they went to Bareilly in Car and reached around 03:30 am in the morning and thereafter, came back after inspection on 25.09.08. The present doctors went without any instructions and proper guidelines. No documents were provided to them. Nor any instructions were given to them in which manner they have to conduct the inspection. The declaration forms containing the information were provided by the college. There is nothing in the statement of the five doctors as mentioned above that during inspection they told these inspecting doctors that they are not full timer. The declaration form submitted show them full timers. In normal course doctors has to see the formal documents alongwith the attendance of the persons. There is no means available to the doctors to verify whether in fact the persons presented to them are full timer or visiting professors. [Para 74]
Observations in the defense of MCI Inspectors:
Court added that furthermore, it cannot be expected to the doctors who are inspecting in such a short notice that too without any proper documents and instructions to conduct inspections, to verify the fakeness or genuineness of the patients found in the college. The doctors were not even apprised by the ministry before leaving the college about the previous inspection conducted and what kind of deficiencies noted in those inspections. [Para 75]
Even, if it is found that doctors unable to verify the five doctors mentioned above are part time or full time or the patients are fake or genuine no culpability can be attached to the present doctors in present facts and circumstances. Because circumstances do not suggest that the present doctors are in any manner colluded with ministry or with the college. [Para 76]
Case Law Referred:
CBI Court observed that in this scenario regard, it is pertinent to refer to case titled “CBI vs. K. Naryana Rao, 2012 ”, wherein apex court while quashing criminal proceedings in paragraph 24 observed as under:
“24. the ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act or for doing, by illegal means, an act which by itself any not be illegal. In other words, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and in a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available.
Accordingly, the evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Accordingly, the circumstances proved before and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. Even if some acts are proved to have been committed, it must be clear that they were so committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused persons who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. Inferences from such proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explanation. In other words, an offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inferences which are not supported by cogent and acceptable evidence.” [Para 76]
Court added that admittedly, the present accused Dr. Vindu Amitabh and Dr. S.K. Rasania have no connection with the Ministry or the college prior or after the inspection. They had not inspected the college at the behest of the accused persons and were directed to inspect on the directions of PW15 Jagdish Prasad Medical Superintendent that too in very haste manner. Furthermore, there is nothing on record as discussed that the present accused were in the knowledge that the declaration forms are of part time faculty members or the patients lying on the beds are fake patients. [Para 77]
In normal course, it is not possible for a person to verify the genuinity of the persons when they were produced by the college authorities and depicted as genuine. Even if it is found that some illegal acts have been committed, it must be clear that they were to be so committed in pursuance to any agreement made between the accused persons who were parties to the alleged agreement. Furthermore, the inferences from such proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when these are incapable of any other reasonable explanation. [Para 77]
Court concluded that in present set of facts, accused Dr.Vindu Amitabh and Dr. S.K. Rasania cannot be held to be in any manner had agreement to commit any illegal act with the college authorities or with the officials of the Ministry. [Para 77]
Court further added that their act of non verifying the fake patients or the part timers faculty members is not in any way suggest of any agreement for doing any illegal act, at best could be considered as negligent act. [Para 77]
Thus, from the facts and circumstances, as discussed the present accused Dr.Vindu Amitabh and Dr. S.K. Rasania cannot be held to have acted in conspiracy with other accused persons, and not found to have abused their position. [Para 78]
While discharging both the alleged accused court pointed out that dishonest intention is found explicitly absent. Thus, no case for commission of offences U/s 120B IPC r/w Sections 420/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act is made out against the present accused doctors, hence accused Dr.Vindu Amitabh and Dr. S.K. Rasania stands discharged in the present case. [Para 78]
Summary and Conclusions:
In view of the above discussion accused Dr. Ambumani Ramadoss, KVS Rao and K.K. Aggarwal are prima facie found to have committed offence U/s 120B IPC r/w Section 13(2) & 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 420/468/471 IPC.
Court added that furthermore, accused Ambumani Ramadoss and KVS Rao are also found to have prima facie committed substantive offences U/s 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Besides, this accused Dr. K.K. Aggarwal also found to have committed prima facie substantive offences U/s 420/468/471 IPC. Accordingly, charges framed against these accused persons. [Para 79]
However, accused Dr. Vindu Amitabh and Dr. Sanjiv Kumar Rasania stands discharged from the present case. [Para 80]
Court further clarified that nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of the merits of the case. [Para 81]
Following questions needs debate and answers:
· Why there is need for Consultants for appointment of Faculty?
· What is the Role of MCI/University in faculty Selection?
· What is the Role of State Government/UGC?
This article will help the potential MCI Accessory/Inspectors not to become innocent victim and part of criminal conspiracy of higher authorities and management of private medical colleges. It is very difficult to realize the sufferings and humiliations suffered by two doctors, Dr.S.K. Rasania and Dr. V. Amitabh till they discharged from the CBI charge sheet. Author apologies for Article published on this group based on Paragraph 26 of the Hon’ble SC dated 6th Sept 2015  which caused immense sufferings to both doctors and requesting them to join the fight for improving the Quality of Medical Education in India based on their own experience and guide the potential MCI Assessors/Inspectors not to become innocent victim.
1. K.S. Radhakrishnan, J., A.K. Sikri, J. Rohilkhand Medical College & Hospital, Bareilly vs. Medical Council of India & Another, Writ Petition (Civil) No.585 of 2013, Date of Judgment: September 06, 2013, http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40735
2. CBI vs. K.K. Aggarwal & Ors., CC No. 03/14, RC No.006/2010/A0014SPE/ACB/Lucknow. Date of Order: 7th Oct 2015. [Online][Accessed: 2015 Oct 20]. Available from:URL:http://judis.nic.in/Daily_Orders/DDC/list_new2.asp?DO_Pdf_Name=po41207102015.pdf
3. CBI vs. Ambumani Ramadoss & Ors., CC No. 03/12, RC No.AC22010A0003/ACUII,SPE/CBI/ND
4. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
5. The Indian Penal Code Act, 1860.
6. CBI vs. K. Naryana Rao, 2012 (9) SCC page512