11-year-old PEC admission scam: CBI court vacates stay on trial

Ramkrishan Upadhyay

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, October 22

Inderjeet Singh, Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Chandigarh, has vacated the stay on the trial of the case in which some students allegedly fraudulently and dishonestly got admission in PEC University of Technology, Sector 12, Chandigarh, on the basis of fake and forged nepalese citizenship certificate under the direct admission of student abroad (DASA) scheme during the academic session 2010-2011.

While allowing the appeal of the CBI, the court has issued notices to the prosecution witnesses for November 16, 2021, for the recording of evidence.

The case was registered by the CBI on September 07, 2010, under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court had granted ad-interim stay on the proceedings of the trial on a petitions filed by accused Arushi Aggarwal and Nishant Sherawat in 2016 and in 2017. Narender Singh, public prosecutor for the CBI, argued for vacating the stay in view of the order of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited & Anr. Vs. CBI dated October 15, 2020. He argued that the interim stay was not extended by a speaking order.

The counsel for the accused opposed the application and said due to the outbreak of Covid 19, the case was adjourned by the High Court from time to time. The counsel relied upon an order dated April 28, 2021, passed by the High Court and contended that as per the order, all interim orders/directions shall stand extended till June 30, 2021.

He said the operation of this order was extended from time to time. Therefore, the stay on the proceedings of the trial court cannot be vacated.

After hearing of the arguments, the court, while applying the apex court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited Vs. CBI, says when a stay is granted by the Superior Court or even by the High Court, the same will end on an expiry of six months from the date of such order unless a similar extension is granted by a speaking order. Not only this, the description of the speaking order is defined by the Supreme Court that the speaking order must show that the case was of such exceptional nature that continuing the stay was more important than having the trial finalised.

Besides, duty is also cast upon the trial court not to adjourn the case beyond a period of six months of the order of stay so that on the expiry of the period of stay, proceedings can commence unless the order of extension of stay is produced.

“A perusal of the orders passed by the High Court in the case in 2016 and 2017and also the subsequent orders reflects that these are not speaking orders. Therefore, guided by the mandate of Asian Resurfacing in Road Agency Vs. CBI, I see no embargo if the proceedings before the trial court are hereby resumed. Further, both parties did not produce any order of the superior court qua stay of the proceedings as directed by order dated July 23, 2021, of this court. Therefore, the present application filed by the CBI is allowed.” says the court. 

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.