JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records in special C.C.No.8 of 2010 on the file of the learned Special Judge for C.B.I. cases, Puducherry and quash the same (final report, preliminary final report dated 29.09.2010 and supplementary final report dated 27.07.2019).) 1. The third accused in the Special C.C.No.8 of 2010 before the Special Judge for CBI Court is the petitioner herein seeks quashment of the Special C.C.No.8 of 2010. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above case is under:- (a) The case in RC MA1 2008 A 0065 was registered on 31.12.2008 against (i) B.Canniappan, Section Officer. (ii) V.Djairamane (late), Computer Data Entry Operator, Examination Wing of Pondicherry University, Puducherry and (iii) S.Manikandan, Employee of Rajiv Gandhi Engineering College, Puducherry and other persons punishable under Section 120-B, r/w Sections 420, 468, 471 of I.P.C and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and take up for investigation by C.B.I. (b) The case RC MA1/2008/0065 was registered on 31.12.2008 and on completion of investigation, 05(five) final reports (charge sheet) under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C were submitted on 29.09.2010 before the learned Special Judge for C.B.I cases at Puducherry. Out of the 05 final reports, 02 final reports were transferred to Court of District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for CBI cases, Karaikal on the basis of jurisdiction. The learned Special Judge for C.B.I cases at Puducherry took cognizance of the three final reports vide C.C.Nos.8,9 and 10 of 2010 and commenced the trial of the said C.Cs. (c) On completion of the trial, vide judgment dated 31.03.2015 in C.C.No.9 of 2010, the learned Special Judge for C.B.I cases at Puducherry acquitted the student B.Agilan and in C.C.No.10 of 2010, the student/N.Perumal was also acquitted. (d) In the instant case, the respondent filed a final report against A1 to A4 for the alleged offences under Sections 120B, r/w 420, 468, r/w 471 of I.P. and under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before the Special Judge for CBI case, Puducherry. In C.C.No.8 of 2010, A1 namely Karumari Subbarayudu is a Professor in Pondicherry Engineering College, A2 namely Balasubramanian is the Assistant Professor in the said college. In C.C.No.8 of 2010, A1 namely Karumari Subbarayudu is a Professor in Pondicherry Engineering College, A2 namely Balasubramanian is the Assistant Professor in the said college. A3 is A.Parthasarathy, was a student of Pondicherry Engineering College in the 3rd year during the relevant time and A4 Mr.Aroumougame, is the father of A3. (e) The trial of C.C.No.8 of 2010 against the petitioner herein and three others commenced and witnesses were also examined. While the trial of the case was advancing, a reliable information was received in the month of January, 2016 to the effect that certain inconsistencies, discrepancies were found in the final report of C.C.No.8 of 2010. In this regard, the CBI submitted a petition under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. before the learned Special Judge for CBI cases Puducherry on 15.02.2016 praying to permit them to conduct further investigation of the case in respect of the discrepancies found in the final report and the learned Special Judge for C.B.I cases, Puducherry was pleased to grant permission to conduct further investigation of the case vide order dated 01.03.2016. Thus, the further investigation of RC-MA1/2008/(A)/0065 in respect of C.C.No.8/2010 was taken up by the C.B.I. (f) The CBI filed a supplementary final report before the learned Special Judge for CBI cases, Puducherry on 27.07.2019. In the first final report of the respondent police cited 24 witnesses and filed 31 documents. The supplementary final report cited 23 witnesses and filed 33 documents. (g) The respondent police has stated in the supplementary final report that further investigation revealed that the statement of C.N.Rathinam, the then Lecturer of PEC, who was named in the preliminary final report dated 29.09.2010 as witness No.LW(5) submitted in the learned Special Judge for CBI cases, Puducherry as the one who evaluated answer script bearing D.No.1730 of "Design of Machine Elements-1" subject, was found false during the further investigation. Further N.Rathinam was not examined but his personal details were collected during investigation of the case. Therefore, the evidence of N.Rathinam witnessing the visit of Aroumogame (A4) to PEC almost every day and meeting Dr.Karumarisubbarayudu (A1) and N.Balasubramaniam (A2) frequently at the college and elsewhere were found false. Further N.Rathinam was not examined but his personal details were collected during investigation of the case. Therefore, the evidence of N.Rathinam witnessing the visit of Aroumogame (A4) to PEC almost every day and meeting Dr.Karumarisubbarayudu (A1) and N.Balasubramaniam (A2) frequently at the college and elsewhere were found false. During further investigation, efforts were taken to find out the evidence, both oral and document to substantiate the meeting of mind/association/involvement of Aromougame (A4) with Dr.Karumari A.Subbarayudu and N.Balasubramaniam at College or elsewhere in inflating/correct of marks in the answer scripts bearing D.No.1730 of Parthasarathy (A3). No evidence had come forth during the further investigation. (h) Thus further investigation found that, as no evidence both oral as well as document was available to substantiate the charge of conspiracy under Section 120B of I.P.C by Aroumougame (A4) with other accused of this case, therefore, Aromougame (A4) was not assigned as accused in this case. 3. Lower Court records reveals that the supplementary final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C dated 29.07.2019 is filed against only A1 to A3 and the same was taken cognizance by the Judge and hence the 4th accused namely father of the petitioner herein filed a discharge petition before the Court on the footing that since his name was dropped in the supplementary final report and there is no material available on record to proceed against him. However, the trial Court has dismissed the discharge petition against which the 4th accused has preferred Crl.R.C.No.57 of 2021 and the same was allowed. This petitioner A3 also filed discharge petition the same was dismissed and he filed Crl.R.C.No.57 of 2021 the same is dismissed as withdrawn. 4. At present, A3 has filed this petition for quashment of proceedings in C.C.No.8 of 2010 on the file of CBI Court, Puducherry qua A3. 5. Heard Mr.V.Karthik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Sudev Kumar, learned Senior Public Prosecutor for CBI. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that A3 is a student, who appeared for the University Examination, while A4 is his father and A1 and A2 are the teaching faculty who are said to have tampered the original marks given in examination. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that A3 is a student, who appeared for the University Examination, while A4 is his father and A1 and A2 are the teaching faculty who are said to have tampered the original marks given in examination. As against the initial final report, the very same petitioner has filed Crl.R.C.No.1323 of 2014 and the same was disposed on 05.03.2015, subsequently, charge sheet has been filed and taken on file and the matter is under trial. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that, similarly placed students have been either acquitted by the trial Court or by this Court and also relied upon the following judgments: 1. Judgment passed in Special C.C.No.9 of 2010 by the learned Special Judge at Puducherry on 31.03.2015. 2. Judgment passed in Special C.C.No.10 of 2010 by the learned Special Judge at Puducherry on 31.03.2015. 3. Judgment passed in Special C.C.No.1 of 2014 by the learned Special Judge at Karaikal on 28.03.2019. 4. Judgment passed in Special C.C.No.1 of 2015 by the learned Special Judge at Karaikal on 28.03.2019. 5. Order passed in Crl.R.C.No.57 of 2021 by this Court on 29.03.2021. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would further contend that as against A3, there is no material to proceed further and further, the examination in issue were cancelled. The very same petitioner has reappeared and qualified for the degree and hence, from the alleged incident, he has not derived any benefit, as to make out the offence as stated in the final charge sheet. 9. After the filing of the supplementary charges, as stated supra, the discharge petition filed by the A4 accused though initially dismissed by the lower Court appears to have been allowed by the High court in Criminal Revision and hence as of now only A1 and A2 Professors of the University and A3 the student are facing the trial. A4 is the father and he has been discharged from the proceedings. 10. A4 is the father and he has been discharged from the proceedings. 10. The learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the orders passed by the Crl.A.No.239 of 2015 dated 29.04.2022 and Crl.A.No.240 of 2015 dated 29.04.2022 that similarly placed persons (students) who are also faced very same set charges of malpractice of inflation of their respective marks in the Pondy University, all are been acquitted in the High Court in the above said criminal appeals and hence he could contend that the allegations found are not sustainable at all and similarly placed accused were also held innocent and criminal prosecution on same set of facts and circumstances, have been ended in acquittal. 11. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I could contend that during the investigation as well as the further investigation of the case, the C.B.I has found that the petitioner Parthasarathy (A3) while he was doing III year B.E.Mechanical of Pondicherry Engineering College, A1 was the head of the department mechanical Engineering, while A2 is the Mechanical Engineering in the same college have entered into the criminal conspiracy with each other to inflate the marks of A3 (student). The petitioner (in all) 7 engineering subjects wrote the examination held in the month of 2007 at Pondicherry University and made him passed in all the 7 subjects. 12(a). The learned Special Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the specific charge and some portion of the evidence to the effect that A3 petitioner herein facilitated A2 for easy identification of his answer scripts and its dummy number had been written 0' to subjects i.e., Parthasarathy (A3) the petitioner facilitated N.Balasubramanian (A2) for easy identification of his answer scripts and its dummy he had written 02 subjects viz. "Control System Engg.and Mechatronics" name in capital letters on the front page of the said 02 answer scripts i.e., "Marks to be filled in by the Examiner"sheet as "CONTROL SYSTEM ENGG"& "MECHATRONICS" It is to note that the said 02 subjects were the subjects evaluated by N.Balasubramanian (A2) at Pondicherry University in the month of Jan'2008. (b) It is to note that Parthasarathy (A3), the petitioner did not write the other 5 of his subjects name in Capital Letters on the front page of the said 5 answer scripts i.e., "Marks to be filled in by the Examiner" sheets. (b) It is to note that Parthasarathy (A3), the petitioner did not write the other 5 of his subjects name in Capital Letters on the front page of the said 5 answer scripts i.e., "Marks to be filled in by the Examiner" sheets. Thus, Parthasarathy (A3) the petitioner facilitated N.Balasubramanian (A2) to identify his 02 answer scripts of "Control system Engg.and Mechatronics" subjects which enabled N.Balasubramanian (A2) to identify and award liberally 70 marks out of 80 and 69 marks out of 80 respectively to the said 02 subjects. It is to note that the marks awarded by N.Balasubramanian (A2) to the said 2 subjects were not commensurate to the answers written to the questions. 13. He further contended that when the answer scripts of paper "central system engineering and Mechatronics" having dummy No.(D.No.1730 subjected to the revaluation by the examiner, he was awarded only 21 marks out of 80, 38 marks out of 80 respectively and hence the valuation of the papers was liberal after identifying the dummy number and A2 has granted more marks that are not commensurate to the answer. 14. The explanation given by the first accused in the departmental proceedings have been heavily relied upon by the petitioner counsel. 15. Lower Court records reveals that sofar P.W.1 to P.W.20 were examined, out of 24 listed witnesses. 16. As per the final report all the 3 accused has entered into the criminal conspiracy by inflating the actual marks secured by A3 with higher marks in the Engineering and Medical stream in the Semester examinations conducted by the University during Nov/Dec 2007 by A1 and A2. 17. Next overt act against is that dishonestly inducing A1,A2 to declare A3 pass, by inflating the marks secured by A3 with higher marks in the Engineering Semester examinations conducted by the University during Nov/Dec 2007 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C r/w 120-B I.P.C. 18. 17. Next overt act against is that dishonestly inducing A1,A2 to declare A3 pass, by inflating the marks secured by A3 with higher marks in the Engineering Semester examinations conducted by the University during Nov/Dec 2007 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C r/w 120-B I.P.C. 18. As per the prosecution, both A1 and A2 while functioning as Examiner, evaluated the answer scripts of Control System of Engineering and Mechatronics of A3 and A2 fraudulently and dishonestly awarded respectively 70 marks out of 80 marks and 69 marks out of 80 marks for the purpose of cheating the Pondicherry University and that the said answer script were subjected for reevaluation through another examiner, who awarded 21 marks out of 80 marks for Control System of Engineering and 38 marks out of 80 marks of Mechatronics and that A2 has awarded excess marks by knowing fully well that the marks awarded by him are not in commensurate with the answers written by A3 and thereby dishonestly induced the Pondicherry University to declare that A3 had passed in the above subjects by manipulation during the process of evaluation. 19. Further the case of prosecution is that A2 traced the dummy number assigned to the answer scripts of A3 and informed the same to A1 and A1 utilized the dummy number for the purpose of identifying the answer scripts of A3 in other subjects and inflated the marks on the answer scripts of A3 and A1 and A2 by abusing their official position entered into the 'safe room' of Pondicherry Examination Wing where the evaluated answer scripts were kept under safe custody, took out all the answer sheets bearing dummy number 1730 of A3 from the 'strong room' and A1 struck off the original marks awarded on the front page of the answer scripts as well as Wall mark list in respect of the subjects and inflated the marks on the front page of the above said answer scripts of A3 as well as Wall marks list in his own hand writing. 20. Thus forged the front page of the answer scripts and Wall Mark List for declaring results by the Pondicherry University as if A3 were passed. The details of examination paper and marks awarded and inflated marks written by A1 are as under:- sl.No. Subject Name of the Examiner Marks awarded by Examiner Marks inflated by A1 1. 20. Thus forged the front page of the answer scripts and Wall Mark List for declaring results by the Pondicherry University as if A3 were passed. The details of examination paper and marks awarded and inflated marks written by A1 are as under:- sl.No. Subject Name of the Examiner Marks awarded by Examiner Marks inflated by A1 1. Design of Machine Elements - 1 N. Rathinam Lecturer 26 36 2. Quality Reliability & Safeth Engg. T. Senthilvelan, Professor 32 40 3. Heat & Mass Transfer R. Anburaj, Sr. Lecturer 23 36 4. Power Plant Engineering N. Gopu Lecturer 25 36 5. Electrical & Electronics  Engg. Ms. Rajathi Lecturer 15 45 21. It is a specific case of the prosecution that the writing seen 0' to answer sheets in capital letter will pave the way for easy identification of the answer sheet by the examiner and wrote the subject name in capital letters for easy identification in the answer sheet so as to give an indication to A1 and A2 to give more marks. Manipulation said to have been found in the 'wall mark list'. The question is who has done it. It is matter for trial and appreciation of evidence. 22. Taking into consideration of the scope of the quashment proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C, this court cannot indulge in "mini trial' so as to weigh the witnesses sofar available, from P.W.1 to P.W.2, and further, though A4 father was discharged by the High court for the reasons stated therein, however, A3 (student), the present petitioner stands on a different footing. 23. In view of the specific averment made in the final report and the some of the documents marked by the prosecution, evaluation of the above oral evidence and the documentary evidence has to be carried on by the trial Court. 24. The first investigation officer recorded statement from L.W.5 Rathinam in the preliminary charge sheet and implicated A3 petitioner in this case. 24. The first investigation officer recorded statement from L.W.5 Rathinam in the preliminary charge sheet and implicated A3 petitioner in this case. However, further investigation conducted by the second investigation officer from the statement of L.W.2 in the supplementary charge sheet who had deposed as P.W.17 before the Hon'ble Special Judge, Puducherry whether the factum that the petitioner has not derived any advantage since exam results in respect of said examination was cancelled which was taken note of by the High Court in Crl.A.Nos.239 and 240 of 2015 are to be considered by the trial Court and not for this Court in the quashment proceedings. 25. Rathinam and Mohammed Ali, the original examiners were examined as P.W.17 and P.W.18 respectively. 26. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon their evidence. However, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI could refute their contention stating that the Court in quashment proceedings shall not evaluate the evidence like a mini trial. It should not step into the shoes of the trial Court in evaluation of the evidence, rather it has to be left open to the trial Court for considering the same. 27. De hors the evidence of P.W.17 and P.W.18 referred above, the petitioner is also facing the charge of entering into conspiracy with A1 and A2 and in pursuance of the same has written the title of the subjects in capital letters on the first page against the instruction given by the university professors A1 and A2, so is the change Whether such an act of the petitioner could invite only disciplinary action, as the same is without any criminality or not is for the determination of the trial Court. 28. 28. In both the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel of the petitioner in Crl.A.Nos.239 and 240 of 2015 which has resulted in acquittal of the accused based upon the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 (in that case) who are in the job of assigning dummy number and also leaking of the dummy number if any and hence it is only for the trial Court to weigh and evaluate the evidence available on record and to find out whether the charges framed against the petitioner A3 are made out and has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and some of the points raised which has been answered in affirmative in support of the some student in the very same set of examination, as held in Crl.A.Nos.239 and 240 of 2015, are to be considered based upon the evidence available on the record. 29. On facts and circumstances of this case, this Court in the quashment proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot conduct mini trial by evaluating the prosecution witnesses so far examined. 30. I am not expressing any opinion as to the merits of the contention raised by the petitioner side since the same is for the trial Court to consider on the evidence at the time of the delivery of the judgment and all the contentions raised by the petitioner are being in the nature for factual adjudication and depends upon the answer to be elicited during the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses and evaluation of the evidence therefor by the trial Court. 31. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P is closed.