Revisionist v. Special Judge

The accused-revisionist has challenged the same by way of present revision.

3. It is an admitted fact that the revisionist is a practicing Advocate and was not a Panel Lawyer of P.N.B. The allegation against the revisionist is that he gave a false non-encumbrance certificate to one Mr. Ram Avatar who stood as guarantor to a loan sanctioned by P.N.B. 2

4. It is contention of counsel for the revisionist that he acted bona fide and gave his legal opinion only on the basis of certified copies of sale-deed and khatauni which was produced before him by his client. He further submits that as the revisionist was not a Panel Lawyer, the bank was not at all bound to entertain the N.E.C. prepared by the revisionist. He also submitted that initially the loan was sanctioned and approved without the said N.E.C. and the revisionist is being made a scapegoat for wrongful and illegal acts of the officer of the bank. He submitted that he is being wrongly framed for honest discharge of his professional duties.

5. It is vehemently argued by counsel for the revisionist that there is no material in the charge sheet or FIR to show that the present revisionist has colluded with other accused or to show that any fabricated document has either been produced or used by the revisionist. He submits that even if entire allegation made in FIR are taken at their face value still no offence is made out against the revisionist as the liability of an Advocate who gave a legal opinion will arise only when such Advocate could have been shown to be actively participating in a plan to defraud the bank. He relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. K. Narayan Rao arising out of SLP (Crl) No.6975 of 2011 and of this High Court rendered in the case of Jai Prakash Gupta Vs. CBI reported in 2014 SCC Online Uttarakhand 1739

6. It is further submitted by counsel for the revisionist that there is no material to show that the loan was sanctioned by the bank solely on the basis of opinion given by revisionist. He also submits that the opinion of the revisionist, whereby Ram Avatar name has been mutated is concluded, it is not a sufficient document to prove the title and ownership and the bank has itself failed to verify the same and has sifted the onus of the same on revisionist.

7. The learned counsel for the C.B.I. relying on his counter affidavit submits that prima facie offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC r/w 120-B of IPC were made out against the 3 revisionist. He contended that the revisionist submitted a false report mentioning the mutation of land is in favour of some Ram Avatar who on investigation found out to be a fictitious person who could not be traced during entire investigation. He further submitted that the revisionist submitted a certificate to the bank inspite of the fact that he was not a Panel Lawyer. This clearly shows his complicity with other accused persons. The learned counsel also submitted that although the first loan was sanctioned before the certificate of revisionist, but the loan in-question was sanctioned after the false certificate. He also apprised the Court regarding the fact that this Court and even the Apex Court has already opined that the judgment of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. K. Narayan Rao (supra) is not applicable in the case of the present revisionist.

8. The revisionist in his rejoinder affidavit submitted that he has issued the non-encumbrance certificate based upon record of Sub- Registrar’s Office, Delhi. He further stated that he admits that no fees was paid by the Bank to the revisionist for the alleged certificate, but he was not aware that his certificate will be used for enhancing the loan. He further states that he has done his work with utmost honesty and on the basis of records produced before him and the total foulplay is of bank officials. He submitted that as per Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. K. Narayan Rao judgment an Advocate cannot be made liable only for discharge of his professional duties.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. On perusing the material available on record and keeping in mind that the trial before the learned Special Judge (CBI) is at an advanced stage, this Court does not deem it appropriate to interfere in the on-going proceedings particularly so when the case at hand has some twisted facts, the truth of which could only by unearth by a proper trial. Moreover, the revisionist heavily relies on the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. K. Narayan Rao, which the Co-ordinate Bench of High Court of Uttarakhand in C482 No.1767 of 2016 has already stated that is not applicable in the case of the present revisionist (SLP (Cri) No.308 of 2017 there against was also rejected), therefore, to 4 uphold judicial comity, this Court is not inclined to go into details of the said argument and is therefore of the same view as that of the earlier Bench. Moreover in both case laws, relied upon by the revisionist, the accused were the Panel Lawyers, but here in the case in hand admittedly the revisionist is not the Panel Lawyer of the bank. So in peculiar facts of the present case both the case laws relied upon by the revisionist are of no help to him. Revisionist was also named in the FIR since beginning.

10. The offshoot of the above discussion is that the present revision is dismissed and the order dated 01.10.2018 passed by learned Special Judge (CBI) is hereby upheld. SK

20.06.2025 (Pankaj Purohit, J.)