The judgment emphasizes the need for 'grave suspicion' and tangible evidence to establish criminal conspiracy, and highlights the limited role of a lawyer in providing legal opinions.

JUDGMENT

Amit Sharma, J. The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`CrPC.) is directed against the order dated 01.10.2019 passed by Ms. Anju Bajaj Chandna, Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-02, Rouse Avenue in CC No. 266/2019, titled CBI v. Ishma Arora & Ors., arising out of FIR No. RC2192015E0009 registered at PS EO-I, N. Delhi, District DSPE, whereby the learned Special Judge framed charges against the petitioner for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 ('IPC') and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1881 ('PC Act').

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are as under:

i. The present FIR was registered upon a complaint dated 20/22.04.2015 made by Sh. Rajeev Azad, Assistant General Manager, Punjab National Bank, Assets Recovery Management Branch, Rajendra Place, New Delhi ('complainant') against Smt. Ishma Arora, the proprietor of M/s Radhey Shyam Trading Company (`the company.), Sri Nitin Kumar Arora and other unknown persons under Sections 120B/420/467/468/471 of the IPC.

ii. In the FIR, it was alleged that Smt. Ishma Arora had applied for and obtained a credit limit of Rs.375 Lacs is her capacity as the proprietor of the company and Sri Nitin Kumar stood as a guarantor in his individual capacity. Property situated as C-7/12 (Northern half portion), Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051 was offered as collateral security and the title deed for creation of equitable mortgage was also deposited.

iii. It was further alleged in the FIR that the said property was also mortgaged in favor of Central Bank of India, Ghonda, Delhi and Bank of Maharashtra, Sector-27, NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh. Legal Search report was called for from bank's counsel, which revealed that the sale deed submitted to the bank for creation of equitable mortgage was fake. It is further alleged in the FIR that accused persons had furnished different PAN Numbers for obtaining the credit facilities.

iv. Investigation revealed as per the chargesheet that the accused persons, including the present petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy in order to cheat Punjab National Bank, L Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi ('the bank') by obtaining a cash credit limit of Rs.375 Lacs from the bank on the basis of forged documents.

v. During investigation, it was found that the petitioner, who is the panel advocate for the bank submitted an allegedly false Legal Search Report dated 29.08.2013 in which he mentioned that the title deed tallies verbatim with the contents as stated in the certified copy obtained by him from the registrar's office and that the said title deeds are original, genuine and not duplicate or fake. It is alleged that investigation revealed that there were apparent differences in the title deed mortgaged with the bank and the certified copy obtained from the Sub Registrar's office inasmuch as on page no. 5 of the certified copy, there were handwritten details of two pay orders of Rs.20 Lacs each, while there was no such detail on page no.5 of the title deed given to the bank. It was also alleged that the petitioner had not received the certified copy from the office of the Sub Registrar till 30.08.2013 and had thus, falsely stated that he had tallied the certified copy with the title deed.

vi. Investigation further revealed that the loan proposal of the company was jointly appraised by Rajiv Kumar Dogra (Senior Manager Incharge of the Loan Department) and Sh. Puneet Garg (Manager Credit) and in doing so, they allegedly committed lapses and did not verify the statement of account in the name of the company maintained with ING Vyasa Bank which was submitted by the applicant/borrower.

vii. The CERSAI search report in respect of offered collateral security was not generated which could reveal the outstanding loan liability of Rs.4 Crores against Ishma Arora and Nitin Kumar Arora. The aforesaid Rajiv Kumar Dogra and Puneet Garg ac