Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Pande Ratneshwari Prasad – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation - Respondent
Cr.M.P. No. 572 of 2018, Cr.M.P. No. 763 of 2018, Cr.M.P. No. 755 of 2018, Cr.M.P. No. 764 of 2018, Cr.M.P. No. 768 of 2018
Decided on : 02-02-2024
[CRIMINAL LAW] - [QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS] - [IPC SECTIONS 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471; PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT SECTIONS 13(2), 13(1)(d)] - [The court discussed the provisions of Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, which pertain to criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery, alongside Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which address corruption by public servants. The court emphasized that the essence of conspiracy lies in the agreement to commit an unlawful act, and that the mere act of providing legal opinions does not absolve a lawyer from liability if they are found to have participated in fraudulent activities. The court concluded that the allegations against the petitioner were sufficient to warrant further proceedings, as they indicated potential complicity in a scheme to defraud the bank.]
Fact of the Case:
Multiple petitions were filed to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner, an advocate, who was accused of providing false Title Investigation Reports (TIR) for properties mortgaged to the State Bank of India, which were later found to be fake. The loans obtained based on these reports resulted in significant financial losses for the bank, leading to allegations of criminal conspiracy, forgery, and corruption.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the petitioner were serious and warranted further investigation. It held that the petitioner, as a panel lawyer, had a duty to ensure the authenticity of the documents he certified, and his failure to do so, coupled with the submission of false reports, indicated potential criminal liability. The court emphasized that the stage of taking cognizance does not require a detailed examination of evidence but rather a prima facie assessment of the allegations.
Issues: Whether the allegations against the petitioner, including the provision of false legal opinions and involvement in a conspiracy to defraud the bank, were sufficient to warrant the continuation of criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the essence of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC is the agreement to commit an unlawful act, and that a lawyer can be held liable for criminal conduct if they knowingly participate in fraudulent schemes. The court also highlighted that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only when no prima facie case exists.
Final Decision: The petitions to quash the criminal proceedings were dismissed, allowing the case to proceed against the petitioner based on the allegations of forgery, conspiracy, and corruption.
JUDGMENT :
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
1. All these petitions have been filed for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding in RC.12(S)/2014-EOW-R [Cr.M.P. No. 763 of 2018]; RC.10(S)/2014-EOW-R [Cr.M.P. No. 572 of 2018]; RC.08(S)/2014-EOW-R [Cr.M.P. No. 755 of 2018]; RC.09(S)/2014-EOW-R [Cr.M.P. No. 764 of 2018] and; RC.11(S)/2014-EOW-R [Cr.M.P. No. 768 of 2018] pending under Sections 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act including the order taking cognizance dated 17.05.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B read with 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. The prosecution story in brief which requires to be enumerated herein, read as under:
A complaint was made vide letter dated 28.07.2014 from Chief Manager, State Bank of India, SME Branch, City Centre, Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel City alleging therein that loan was given by State Bank of India, SME Branch, Bokaro Steel City to M/s Balaji Food & Masala Co. Hazaribagh. The said company was promoted by Vivek Pratap Singh and Birendra Kumar both Partners of M/s Balaji Food & Masala Co. Hazaribagh. The loan was sanctioned to aforesaid company/unit on 20.11.2006 but the same was declared NPA on 28.11.2011 and since then there was no recovery in loan account to the tune of Rs. 2.59 crores plus accrued interest calculated till 2013.
It is further alleged that the said accounts of the company having been declared NPA and then same has been transferred to SAMB, Patna for hard recovery proceeded under SARFAESI Act, 2002. However, due to intervention of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi recovery was not proceeded but, in the meantime, NPA resolution Agent, M/s. Vision had taken possession of the land and properties of the company which were mortgaged to the Bank and further reported that sale deed no. 10710, 10723,11080,11081 and 12409 were found to be fake properties and as such could not be located.
The DGM (Vigilance) ordered an investigation into the said matter and accordingly a report was submitted wherein it was stated that all the aforesaid sale deeds i.e. 10710, 10723, 11080, 11081 and 12409 represents fake properties and mortgagor Birendra Kumar neither has possession nor ownership of the said landed property which were mortgaged by way of sale deed.
It is alleged that the investigating official of the bank has pointed out certain doubts on the integrity of the panel advocates of the bank including the present petitioner. The accusation against present petitioner was related to the sale deed no. 12409 dated 20.11.2008.
It is further stated that it is apparent from report that the properties as mortgaged to the bank against such public debt are all fake and based on forged documents and as such big forgery was committed by the said company and its promoters and total amount of Rs.2.59 crores along with interest have been misappropriated.
Hence, a regular case was registered under sections 120B read with 420, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the firm M/s Balaji Food & Masala Co., Hazaribagh, Vivek Pratap Singh, Birendra Kumar, both Partners of M/s Balaji Food & Masala Co., Hazaribagh and other unknown.
(ii) Cr.M.P. No. 572 of 2018:
A complaint was received vide letter dated 28.07.2014 from Shri Neeraj Raja Singh, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, SME Branch, City Centre, Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel City alleging therein criminal conspiracy, forgery, cheating and using forged document as genuine by the accused borrowers S/Sh. Vivek Pratap Singh & Birendra Kumar, both Directors of M/s Shirdi Sai Technopack Pvt. Ltd, Demotand Distt. Hazaribagh, Jharkhand in the matter of obtaining Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 330 lacs and a Term Loan of Rs. 400 Lacs in the name of the firm M/s Shirdi Sai Technopack Pvt Ltd, Demotand Hazaribag on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.
For obtaining the said lo
A lawyer can be held criminally liable for providing false legal opinions if it is established that they knowingly participated in a fraudulent scheme, and the mere act of providing legal advice does....
The court held that mere negligence by an advocate in providing legal opinions does not constitute criminal conspiracy without evidence of active participation in the fraudulent scheme.
Point of Law : Allegations made in complaint disclose commission of a cognizable offence and those allegations have found support in statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. on the basi....
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
