An advocate cannot be charged criminally without clear, grave suspicion connecting them to the alleged crime, as mere hearsay is insufficient for prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 14.03.2018 passed by the learned CJM-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Angul in G.R. Case No. 1452 of 2015 in rejecting the application filed by him for discharge from the case.

2. The brief facts, relevant only to decide the present revision are as follows:

An FIR was lodged on 08.11.2015 by one Harmohan Sahoo before the IIC of Angul Police Station alleging therein that on being motivated by Basanta Kumar Sahoo and Lokanath Behera, who are the functionaries of Lakshmi Swayam Sahayak Samiti, he and several other persons deposited huge amounts of money under different schemes. The said Basanta Kumar Sahoo was the Chief Executive of Lakshmi Self Help Cooperative Ltd. Kalinga Bazar, Choudwar, Cuttack and Lokanath Behera was the Branch Manager of the said Lakshmi Swayam Sahayak Samiti, Angul. Though the deposits matured in February, 2015 and May, 2015, the promised amount was not returned. When the informant approached the Branch Manager, he avoided on some pretext or the other. The informant thereafter met the Chief Executive at Cuttack but was told that the loan amount could not be recovered and that the Directors had taken away heavy cash and were not returning the same, for which they were facing difficulties in returning the maturity value to the investors. According to the informant, cash of Rs.2,23,500/- was taken from him by motivating him to deposit under different Schemes and by handing over forged fixed deposit certificates, money receipts and bonds etc. It is also alleged that crores of rupees were similarly taken away from different persons. When the informant asked Basanta Kumar Sahoo to return the maturity value, he was abused and threatened to be killed by engaging antisocials. He was also threatened that the president- Sunil Pradhan, vice- president-Prasanta Kumar Nayak and legal advisor- Niranjan Singh (petitioner) are very influential persons and would not hesitate to kill them. On such report, Angul P.S. Case No.530 of 2015 was registered under Sections 420 /467/468/471/ 294/506/120-B IPC and Section 4 , 5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against five accused persons including the present petitioner- Niranjan Singh under the aforementioned sections.

3. The petitioner filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C in the court below with prayer to discharge him from the offence on the ground that he, being an advocate was only the legal advisor of Lakshmi Self Help Cooperative Society Ltd. and therefore, had no role to play in the alleged occurrence. Learned court below however, held that being the legal advisor, the petitioner cannot plead that he had no knowledge regarding the illegal collection of funds by Lakshmi Cooperative Society and further, as his name finds place in the FIR as well as in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is prima facie evidence against him. On such reasoning, learned court below rejected the petition for discharge. The said order of rejection is impugned in the present revision.

4. Heard Mr. Subit Palit, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. S.J. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P. Tripathy, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

5. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Palit argues that an advocate cannot be made liable for any act done by his client. There is no legal bar for an advocate to act as legal advisor to an organization and to render advice as may be required in such professional capacity. Even otherwise, there is absolutely no evidence agains