FIRST ADDITIONAL District and Sessions Judge Akhilesh Pandya on Monday dismissed the complaint filed against Director-General (Home Guards) Swaraj Puri in connection with his son’s admission to an engineering college in Indore.
Rejecting the complaint filed by former BJP corporator Mahesh Garg, the judge said there is no ground to proceed against any of the accused.
There is no evidence that any document has been fabricated nor is there a ground that Puri misused his official position and received the amount for admission as bribe, the court said.
Garg had charged Puri with faking documents to get admission of his son Shreyas to Shri Govindram Saxeria Institute of Technology and Science (SGSITS) in 2001 under the NRI-sponsored quota.
The judge observed that the DG’s wife Savita Puri, who was a government servant, signed admission forms at all places as mother and guardian of her son Shreyas. She had informed her department that she got her son admitted under the NRI quota to SGSITS.
Puri was removed as Director-General of Police in September after the Economic Offence Wing (EOW) filed an FIR against on the fact-fudge charges.
Judge Pandya has held the EOW’s conclusion wrong. The EOW said businessman Baboolal Somani was not an NRI at the time of sponsoring Shreyas’s fee at the SGSITS in 2001.
The court said an NRI has been defined under Section 6 (1) of Income Tax Act, whereas the EOW has referred to NOR (not ordinarily resident) mentioned in Section 6 (6) of the Act.
Besides, the returns accepted by the Income Tax Department show Somani to be an NRI and also the bank statements of account confirm that he was an NRI during the period he sponsored Shreyas’s fee.
“Nowhere does the prospectus of the SGSITS specify that one has to be a blood relative in order to sponsor a student’s fee under the NRI-sponsored quota. Similar procedure has been followed by all the candidates who were given admission in the SGSITS that year (2001),” the order said. The court remarked that relationships based on close associations are proper and cannot be found faulty.
Advocate Ajay Gupta appeared on behalf of Puri while lawyer Dr Manohar Dalal and special prosecutor Ashlesh Sharma pleaded on behalf of Garg and EOW, respectively.
In the complaint filed through Dr Dalal, Garg had said that since Puri facilitated Somani’s hawala transactions, the businessman returned the favour by sponsoring his son’s fee. Garg had also said the mention of Somani as Shreyas’s grandfather in the college admission had no base, as they are not related to each other.
The district court took cognisance of the case under the Section 202 of CrPC and directed the EOW in September 2006 to investigate and submit a report to this effect. The EOW registered an FIR against Puri, saying the case required investigation.
However, Puri got it quashed through his counsel SC Bagadia at Indore bench of MP High Court. The bench of Justice S S Dwivedi, nevertheless, asked the district court to move ahead with its proceedings.
The EOW, which had found Puri guilty in its interim report, submitted its final report last month to the court that refused to part with the investigative agency’s findings till it gave the final order.