Mukta Gupta, J.

1. By the present petition the Petitioner challenges the orders dated 31st March, 2009 and 8th April, 2009 directing and framing charge against the Petitioner for offences under Section 420/467/468/471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the PC Act) and in the alternative Section 109 read with Section 420 of the IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the job assigned to the Petitioner was only of legal search and he was not required to look into whether the property was vacant or constructed which was the job of the valuer and not the Petitioner. An inadvertent/ negligent mistake in noting the difference in the area in the sale deed cannot hold the Petitioner liable for criminal misconduct, when the document was found genuinely registered with the Sub-Registrar. The Petitioner in his legal search report had asked the bank officials to follow the safeguards and in case the safeguards would have been adhered to, the loss as alleged would not have been caused. Further the loan was not sanctioned pursuant to the search report of the Petitioner as the search report by the Petitioner was dated 16th November, 1998 whereas the loan had been sanctioned prior thereto on 13th November, 1998. Thus, it cannot be said that the Petitioner in connivance or in conspiracy with the co-accused committed the offences alleged. Reliance is placed on Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao JT 2012 (9) SC 355 and Neeta Deep Rastogi Vs. CBI Crl.Rev.P. 77/2008 decided by this Court on 21st January, 2009. There is no legal evidence to show that the Petitioner ever met the main accused and thus the finding of the learned Trial Court in para 70 distinguishing the case of the Petitioner from Neeta Deep Rastogi (supra) is not borne out from the evidence on record. Further as alleged that the report of the Petitioner was incomplete as 13 year title report was not given, the bank ought not to have acted on such a report and should have referred the matter for a further opinion to the Petitioner. Thus, the impugned order be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the CBI contends that due to active connivance of the Petitioner and on the basis of the search report of the Petitioner, loan was sanctioned to the main accused by the bank. The Petitioner failed to even notice that the copy of the sale deed in possession of the Petitioner for conducting the search report stated the area to be 9183.6 sq. mtr whereas the actual land in question and as per the sale deed registered with the Sub-Registrar was 83.6 Sq. mtr. The Petitioner did not even visit the site and opined that the property was fit for mortgage. The Petitioner failed to take report from the UPSIDC to see whether the property was mortgaged or not. Learned counsel for the CBI relied upon the statement of prosecution witnesses Shri H.K. Verma, Dr. Vichitra Narain Pathak, Shri Mayank Srivastava and Shri Kailasam Raghuraman to show the link between the Petitioner and the other accused. Reliance was also placed on the statements of Shri Dharmender Mohan. It is further stated that conspiracy has to be inferred from the facts of the case as conspiracy is hatched in secrecy. However, it is fairly admitted that there is no legal evidence on record that the Petitioner met the main accused Vijay Manchanda.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Petitioner has been charged for offences abovementioned on the basis of complaint of Shri H.K. Verma, Assistant General Manager, Central Bank of India, Janpath Branch New Delhi wherein he alleged that Vijay Kumar Manchanda and his late father Desh Raj Manchanda, Directors and partners of M/s. Raj Raxine (P) Ltd. and M/s. PU Foam Industries in conspiracy with Ravinder Kapoor, D.N. Upadhyay, H.O. Mehrotra, State officers of the Central Bank of India and other unknown persons cheated the bank to the tune of more than 2 cro