By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, Sep 4: The High Court of Meghalaya on Thursday acquitted Cabinet Minister Ampareen Lyngdoh and two other retired government officials—JD Sangma and Ameka Lyngdoh— in the infamous ‘white ink case’ dating back to 2008.
The Single Bench of Chief Justice Indra Prasanna Mukerji, in his order, said the accused, Ampareen and Sangma, have made separate applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They also seek quashing of the order dated August 23, 2022, passed by the Special Judge (CBI), East Khasi Hills, Shillong, in applications made by them under Section 227 of the said Code.
By the said impugned order, the Judge had dismissed the applications of the accused.
It was in or about 2008, when the then state government started a recruitment process for appointment of assistant teachers in lower primary schools. A part of the selection process became the subject-matter of the complaint. This part concerned five centres of Shillong, Jowai, Amlarem, Tura and Dadenggre.
The complainant on July 18, 2011, lodged an FIR with the Criminal Investigation Department of the state and started a criminal case against Ampareen Lyngdoh, the then Education Minister of Meghalaya, J.D. Sangma, the then Director of Elementary and Mass Education (DEME) and Ameka Lyngdoh, the then Deputy Director of Elementary and Mass Education (DEME).
The accusation was that they conspired with one another, collaborated and manipulated the score sheets and other results of the selection process so that their favoured persons got the appointments. As a result, many eligible and successful candidates in the selection process were left out.
Initially in 2011, the case was registered under Section 408 IPC at Laitumkhrah Police Station against Ampareen based on one complaint.
During the hearing, the high court issued an order on November 2, 2017, transferring the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) which registered a case on January 3, 2018.
It took the CBI two and a half years to file a chargesheet on June 25, 2020.
In the chargesheet, Sections 120-B read with 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 were also included. Another period of more than two years and two months was taken to frame the chargesheet, on August 25, 2022, and August 31, 2022, respectively.
Several hundred witnesses were listed to give evidence. The court directed the CBI to cut down the list, following which the list was reduced to 181. Till date, only 28 witnesses have been examined.
Out of 521, candidature of 246 persons was cancelled on the ground that their selection was tainted. Salman Khurshid, Senior Advocate appearing for Ampareen and K. Paul, Senior Advocate appearing for Sangma produced before the high court the score sheets at page 204 onwards of the petition which appear to have been prepared and signed by five officials, namely, the Director, Elementary and Mass Education; Member Secretary, DEME; Headmaster; Lecturer, DIET and an official of SDOIEAC. It was sent to Sangma for checking and verification. He approved it. The score sheet at page 204 stated that it was prepared on the basis of “comparative working sheets.”
Then the Court was taken to pages 197 onwards which represented the merit list prepared on the basis of this list. The counsel showed the Court the break-up of marks obtained by the candidate against serial number 6 at page 197 of the merit list which matched the computation of scores in the said sheets against serial number 30 at page 205.
“Then I was shown the final list of candidates rated ranking-wise at page 194. The contents of all the three sheets were identical. All were signed by the same officials,” Chief Justice Mukerji said.
Now, the case of the prosecution was that the three accused were in conspiracy, connivance and collaboration with one another. They had manipulated the score sheets, thereby, displacing the successful candidates by candidates of their choice. The original score sheets were different. White ink was used to erase the marks and substitute them by higher or lower marks as the case may be to accommodate the preferred candidates and to remove the undesirable ones.
Furthermore, they had a charge against Ampareen that using her influence as minister she had furnished slips to the officers preparing the tabulation sheets directing alteration of marks. First of all, the three documents showing various levels in tabulation of results were signed by the self same five persons.
“Secondly, the said slips which had been produced as evidence could not by themselves suggest any specific direction for alteration of marks. The originals have not been produced as evidence. No documents showing interpolation or any application of white ink for erasing the marks are on record. The said slips which have been produced with some remarks of Ampareen could be for more than one purpose. There is no further evidence to link those slips with the charge of manipulation of results,” the court added.
According to the court, the documents, records and other evidence is so weak that a reasonable suspicion of the accused having committed the crime does not arise.
The Chief Justice observed that the prosecution failed to establish even a prima facie case from where a reasonable suspicion may arise in the prosecutor or the court of interpolation of the score sheets by the accused or any of them. The case or charges against each of them falls to the ground.
“Under Section 482, this Court has the power to prevent “abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The selection process is of 2008. About 17 years have rolled by. The first FIR was lodged on July 18, 2011. Nothing has moved significantly in prosecuting the accused. Only 28 out of 181 witnesses have been examined. Such enormous delay in prosecuting a criminal case is also against the fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 21, 19 and 14 to lead a peaceful life free of mental anxiety caused by pendency of a criminal proceeding. At the rate it is proceeding, examination of all witnesses, might take up the entirety of the remaining life of the accused,” the court further added, while quashing the charges against the three accused.