Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 680 (MP)

Shailendra Kumar Sharma v. State of M. P.

2009-06-15

A.P.SHRIVASTAVA, SUBHASH SAMVATSAR

body2009
ORDER 1. This writ appeal is preferred by the appellant-petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 12.12.2008 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in WP No. 2611/08 whereby his petition for grant of admission in LL.B II Semester Examination has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner was given admission in LL.B Course in Madhav Law College, Gwalior from where he has passed his first semestar. Subsequently, it was pointed out that the petitioner was facing criminal trial and he has not disclosed the said fact in his admission form. On that basis his admission was cancelled which was challenged by the petitioner by filing WP No. 2042/05 before this Court and the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 3.8.2005 and it was held by this Court that cancellation of admission of the petitioner in the respondent law college was not arbitrary or illegal and this order of cancellation- of admission has attained finality. Subsequently, WP No. 2611/08 was filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is acquitted by the Criminal Court in Sessions Trial No. 31/05 vide Annexure P-5. 3. From perusal of Annexure P-5, we find that the petitioner was acquitted and all the material witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. Hence, the present petition was filed on the ground that as subsequently the petitioner is acquitted by the Criminal Court he may be admitted by the college in LL.B Second Semester. 4. This prayer is opposed by Shri Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for Madhav Law College, Gwalior i.e. the respondent No.3. He contended that there is a clear rule framed by the college [Annexure R-3] wherein it is provided that a person who has criminal background will not be admitted to the college. It is also provided that if any person is admitted to the college on giving false information then his admission can be cancelled. 5. In the present case, the case of the college is that the petitioner has given false information. He has concealed the fact that he was facing criminal trial. In such circumstances, his subsequent acquittal in the criminal case has no consequence. The only question is whether the petitioner has concealed the fact that he was facing criminal trial at the time of getting admission. He has concealed the fact that he was facing criminal trial. In such circumstances, his subsequent acquittal in the criminal case has no consequence. The only question is whether the petitioner has concealed the fact that he was facing criminal trial at the time of getting admission. This fact is not disputed that the petitioner was facing a criminal trial at the time of admission and this fact was not disclosed by him at the time of admission. 6. Considering this fact, we find that the petition filed by the petitioner has rightly been dismissed by the learned Single Bench and no interference in the said order is called for. However, the petitioner is free to apply to other colleges for admission and at that time if he discloses the fact about the pendency of the criminal trial against him at the time of applying for his admission, the college concerned, if so chooses, may admit him. Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed of.