Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.27162 of 2011 ====================================================== Vijay Kumar Singh Versus .... .... Petitioner/s The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 6 10-12-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 5.1.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Patna Kotwali P.S. Case no. 393 of 2008 whereby the processes were directed to be issued after cognizance being taken for offences punishable under Sections 406,420,467,468,471,109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case as per the informant is that a cash credit loan worth Rs.7.75 lacs was given to the proprietor of M/s Om Trading Company, namely, Manoj Kumar on 13.2.2006. The alleged firm was a medicine
Legal Reasoning
distributor. The stock of the firm lying in its godown was pledged with the bank by Manoj Kumar for which Title Deed dated 11.6.1992, concerning a land situated at Mauza Ranipur, By-Pass Road, Patna having an area of 2.5 kathas was Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27162 of 2011 (6) dt.10-12-2013 2/10 submitted by Manoj Kumar as collateral security to the bank against the aforesaid loan. It is further alleged that Arunjay Kumar, Advocate of the bank issued the non-encumbrance certificate with regard to the aforesaid land of Manoj Kumar and opined that the title deed can be taken by the bank as collateral security. The petitioner, being one of the valuers of the bank, made an assessment of the valuation of the land in
Legal Reasoning
question and gave his certificate after visiting the land. Sri Shankar Prasad Sah, Chartered Accountant submitted the viability report of the loan transaction. On the basis of the report submitted by the aforesaid persons, cash credit loan was given to Manoj Kumar, who, after availing the loan, never operated the loan account nor deposited the sale proceeds in the account and therefore the said account was declared NPA. The informant bank accepted the Title Deed submitted by Manoj Kumar as collateral security but after verification, it was found that the said title deed was forged and fabricated. Thereafter the bank officials visited the godown of M/s Om Trading Company wherein the stock pledged with the bank as security against the loan was also removed by Manoj Kumar without the permission of the bank. The total recoverable amount from Manoj Kumar is Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27162 of 2011 (6) dt.10-12-2013 3/10 Rs.8,16,428. Since both, Manoj Kumar and guarantor could not be contacted, hence it was concluded that the act of fraud was a result of conspiracy and the loan amount was misappropriated after submitting fake collateral security and consequently, Patna Kotwali P.S. Case no. 393 of 2008 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420,406,467,468,471 and 120B of the IPC. The police investigated the case and submitted Charge Sheet no. 339 of 2010 on 24.10.2010 against the petitioner, co accused Arunjay Kumar (Advocate), Shankar Prasad Sah (Chartered Accountant) and Neel Kanth, the then Manager, Canara Bank. Consequently, processes were issued against the aforesaid persons but cognizance was not taken against Manoj Kumar, the loanee and Bhagwat Prasad, the guarantor. In the FIR, it is specifically alleged that the petitioner made a valuation of the land and issued valuation certificate. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Clause 3 of the valuation report suggests that if any property is offered as collateral security, the concerned financial institution is requested to verify the extent of land Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27162 of 2011 (6) dt.10-12-2013 4/10 shown in the valuation report with regard to the latest legal opinion and Clause 7 of the valuation report suggests that the valuation work is undertaken by the valuer on the request of the Senior Manager, Canara Bank. The legal opinion-cum- non encumbrance certificate and scrutiny report was submitted thereafter. Clause 7, therefore, suggests that so far as title and possession of the land in question is concerned, to that effect the certificate was issued by the concerned advocate. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioner and in this context, reliance has been placed on the decision rendered by the Apex court in the case of CBI, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao, reported in (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 512. Learned counsel for the State submits that the Bank was defrauded by the petitioner, being the valuer, by hatching a conspiracy with the loanee and the guarantor. Considering the rival submission of the parties, it is clear that the bank was defrauded basically by the loanee Manoj Kumar, who pledged a fraudulent deed as a collateral security and the petitioner being valuer was not supposed to certify the genuineness and otherwise of the title of the loanee Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27162 of 2011 (6) dt.10-12-2013 5/10 over the land which was given to the bank as collateral security. This is not the case of the bank that any entrustment was made to the petitioner, hence, no case under Section 406 IPC is made out against the petitioner nor there is any evidence that the petitioner deceived the Bank, by fraudulently or dishonestly inducing the Bank to deliver any property or deceived the Bank to do or omit to do anything, as the quantum of valuation of the land as assessed by the petitioner is not in dispute. Hence, the petitioner cannot be held liable for dishonestly inducing the Bank to deliver the loan amount. Hence, no case under Section 420 IPC is made out against the petitioner. Offence under Section 467 IPC is also not made out against the petitioner as the alleged sale deed which was purported to be the valuable security, is alleged to be pledged or given by way of security by the loanee Manoj Kumar. Offence under Section 468 IPC is made out as the offence under this Section gets constituted only when some one commits forgery by using a document or electronic record for the purpose of cheating. Hence, forgery, if any, has been done by the loanee. Offence under Section 471 IPC is made out against the loanee who has knowingly Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27162 of 2011 (6) dt.10-12-2013 6/10 submitted a forged sale deed by way of collateral security. The offence of abetment has been defined in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as follows: “107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a thing, who- First.-Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.-Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” Section 107 of the IPC clearly suggests that a person abets the doing of a thing if he instigates any person to do that thing or engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing or intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing but the prosecution case does not reflect that the petitioner in any way abetted or assisted the loanee. Section 120A of the IPC defines the offence of criminal conspiracy which reads as under : of Definition “120A. criminal conspiracy.--When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,- (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27162 of 2011 (6) dt.10-12-2013 7/10 Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.” There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner indulged in conspiracy with the loanee. The petitioner claims that he visited the site of the land in question along with Chartered Accountant, Neel Kanth, the then Manager, Canara Bank and Arunjay Kumar, Advocate and then valuated the land shown by the bank authorities and the petitioner was not supposed to verify the title of the land in question and the petitioner can only be charged with the accusation of criminal conspiracy, once the conspiracy to commit an illegal act is proved, where the act of one conspirator becomes the act of the other. In the present case, there is neither any direct nor circumstantial evidence to suggest that the petitioner was part of the conspiracy. Similar view was taken in the case of CBI, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao (supra) where the bank was defrauded after sanctioning of the housing loan to 22 borrowers where the thrust of accusation was against an advocate of the bank where it has been held in paragraph nos. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27162 of 2011 (6) dt.10-12-2013 8/10 27 to 31, in the following words: “27……. A lawyer does not tell his client that he shall win the case in all circumstances. Likewise a physician would not assure the patient of full recovery in every case. A surgeon can not and does not guarantee that the result of surgery would invariably be beneficial, much less to the extent of 100% for the person operated on. The only assurance which such a professional can give or can be given by implication is that he is possessed of the requisite skill in that branch of profession which he is practicing and while undertaking the performance of the task entrusted to him, he would be exercising his skill with reasonable competence. This is what the person approaching the professional can expect. Judged by this standard, a professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings, viz., either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. 28. In Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2005) 6 SCC 1 this court laid down the standard to be applied for judging. To determine whether the person charged has been negligent or not, he has to be judged like an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not necessary for every professional to possess the highest level of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27162 of 2011 (6) dt.10-12-2013 9/10 expertise in that branch which he practices. 30. Therefore, the liability against an opining advocate arises only when the lawyer was an active participant in a plan to defraud the Bank. In the given case, there is no evidence to prove that A-6 was abetting or aiding the original conspirators. 31. However, it is beyond doubt that a lawyer owes an “unremitting loyalty” to the interests of the client and it is the lawyer’s responsibility to act in a manner that would best advance the interest of the client. Merely because his opinion may not be acceptable, he cannot be mulcted with the criminal prosecution, particularly, in the absence of tangible evidence that he associated with other conspirators. At the most, he may be liable for gross negligence or professional misconduct if it is established by acceptable evidence and cannot be charged for the offence under Sections 420 and 109 of IPC along with other conspirators without proper and acceptable link between them. It is further made clear that if there is a link of evidence to connect him with the other conspirators for causing loss to the institution, undoubtedly, the prosecuting authorities are entitled to proceed under criminal prosecution. Such tangible materials are lacking in the case of the respondent herein.” Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27162 of 2011 (6) dt.10-12-2013 10/10 In the light of the above discussion and considering the materials on record, this court is of the view that no offence, as charged, is made out against the petitioner. Hence, allowing the present prosecution to continue will be an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, to secure the ends of justice, the order issuing processes dated 5.1.2011 after taking cognizance passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Patna Kotwali P.S. Case no. 393 of 2008 including the entire prosecution is hereby quashed. This application is, accordingly, allowed. Anil/- (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)