India

BOPEE paper leak mastermind convicted

Khursheed Wani

An anti-corruption court in Kashmir convicted kingpin of a racket that fraudulently sold question papers to select candidates to facilitate their entry into professional colleges. The kingpin Mushtaq Ahmad Pir, who was Chairman of the Board of Professional Entrance Examinations (BOPEE) when the scam unearthed, has been sentenced five years imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1 crore. His broker Sajad Ahmad Bhat has been awarded five years jail and Rs 50 lakh fine.

Pir was a Kashmir university professor before his placement as BOPEE chairman where he indulged in malpractices. The special anti-corruption judge Yash pal Bourney also convicted 43 persons involved in the scam at various levels while seven persons were acquitted.

Several candidates who were given professional seats have been sentenced one-year imprisonment. Their admission to professional colleges was already quashed.

Peer was arrested on 23 November 2014 by the crime branch after the investigation revealed that he had sold the CET-2012 papers along with answer keys for Rs 60 lakhs.

Peer was charge-sheeted along with more than fifty other persons in the case (FIR 24/2013 Under Section 420, 120B RPC, 5(2)d r/w (5(2) PC Act) registered at Police Station Crime Branch. Among them include beneficiary students and parents besides the brokers.

The government has insisted that Peer was sole custodian and trustee of the question papers for CET-2012. It said that he was found to have abused his official position by selling off question papers along with answer key prior to conduct of examinations and conferred the undue benefit upon the beneficiaries, resulting in the selection of undeserving candidates for MBBS. Many witnesses have been examined by the court.

The high court granted bail to Pir on May 24, 2017. The high court and the trial court had earlier rejected several bail applications by Pir given the gravity and seriousness of the offence committed by him. He had also withdrawn appeal before Supreme Court against the rejection of his application by the high court.