Lecturer to stand trial, rules HC

Kurane was called upon to examine the SYBCom Accountancy (theory) papers by the Shivaji university in January 1986. As per the ruling given by Justice Sahai of the BHC, a student from the Ichalkaranji centre Ashok Salokhe visited Kurane’s house during the May holidays and informed him about his poor performance in Accountancy paper. It is alleged that the lecturer accepted Rs 400 from the student and gave him the answer sheet in return. The student rewrote two answers for which he was awarded marks again and passed the examination.

According to Justice Sahai’s ruling, the exchange between the duo was "arranged by a political body calledAkhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad and the then acting registrar and a senior clerk of the university". It is stated that the deputy registrar lodged an FIR against the lecturer a week after the incident following which Kurane’s house was searched.

However, no incriminating documents were found. Statements of various persons concerned were recorded. Then the Anti-Corruption Bureau filed the chargesheet. Thereafter, the special judge issued process summons against the accused. While the lecturer moved the high court, he was referred back to the special judge who framed charges of corruption against the Kurane.

Justice Sahai ruled that "grave suspicion" against the accused justifies the charges framed by the special judge adding that in such case a court cannot discharge an accused. The trial will prove whether the accusations were correct or not, but the initial doubts raised against the lecturer’s conduct during the college exam is enough ground to initiate proceedings against him, the high court ruled."It is not obligatory on the part of the judge to go into the merits of the case and dwell on the innocence of the accused at this stage," the ruling stated.

Justice Sahai has also stated that the lecturer is punishable under the Indian Penal Code since he is a "public servant" doing examination work. Kurane’s counsel Vijay Thorat had argued that the lecturer was merely appointed as an examiner by the Shivaji University, and therefore he cannot be accused of misusing his position as a public servant. However, the high court ruled that any person who receives a remuneration from the university fund is deemed to be a public servant.

The high court has directed the Special Judge to conduct the trial and dispose off the proceedings in the next six months.