Thakre faces charges of being hand-in-glove with the perpetrators of the scandal, for aiding students in increasing their marks through revaluation for monetary considerations. He has been booked in case no. 346/99 concerning revaluation irregularities.

``There is a prima facie evidence against him (Thakre) for the things pertaining to revaluation,'' Deputy Commissioner of Police (Zone 1) Sanjay Kumar told reporters on Thursday night.

One of the youngest academicians to assume the post of Dean, Thakre who belongs to a prominent family, was one of the three members in the A K Dey Committee that was set up by the University to look into the administrative lacunae and loopholes that led to the unsavoury scam, and suggest ways and meansfor rectifying the same.

The Committee submitted its report to Vice Chancellor Dr B B Chopane nearly a fortnight ago and the same was even tabled before the Management Council for discussion. Thakre's very presence on the panel was a matter of controversy. The issue even found a mention during the VC's interaction with newspersons after the last meeting of the Management Council. Chopane had then said that the decision to appoint him on the Committee was taken by the Board of Exams (BoE).

Thakre was arrested on Thursday morning from his Laxmi Nagar residence and produced before Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Govind Masand the same afternoon. He was remanded to police custody till July 19.

Assistant Registrar (Revaluation) Shyam Kalamkar and the four scrutinisers (tabulators), who were arrested on Wednesday evening, were also remanded to police custody till July 20 by the same court on Thursday afternoon. The police had, in fact, sought Thakre's custody till July 24.

However, Thakre's counselcontended that his client was innocent and was being dragged into the scandal only because his name was mentioned by Kalamkar. The counsel pointed out that Thakre was a member on the Dey panel that identified the irregularities and recommended corrective measures. Merely for recovery of documents and other material, the police need not require a 12-day custody but can do with two days custodial remand with their findings duly informed to the defence counsel, it was contended.

The Public Prosecutor countered this by submitting that the scandal was not the making of any single person but involved a larger group. If granted any relief at an early stage, the accused might tamper with the evidence and caution the other co-conspirators, the public prosecutor pointed out.