In Brief
The appellants, founders of an educational society, sought AICTE approvals to establish three business schools on leased land that was mortgaged to secure a bank loan. Their first application disclosed the mortgage; later applications omitted this information. An anonymous complaint led to CBI charges of cheating and conspiracy. After discharge at the trial court, the High Court reversed it under Section 482 CrPC. The Supreme Court held that cheating requires the alleged victim's claim of dishonest inducement; here, AICTE made no such complaint. The first application disclosed the mortgage, and AICTE knew the land was encumbered when granting all approvals. Mere carelessness in omitting information from later applications, without evidence of conscious conspiracy, cannot constitute deliberate deception. Moreover, the CBI improperly bypassed the statutory revision remedy to invoke inherent powers outside the limitation period. The Court upheld discharge and set aside the High Court's order.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.