IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CHITTARANJAN DASH, J.
Kulamani Parida – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
CRLMC No. 3756 of 2016
Decided On : 09-11-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cognizance of financial fraud involving forgery (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. arguments regarding the chartered accountant's duty (Para 11 , 12) |
| 3. analysis of professional responsibility and involvement in fraud (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. quashing of cognizance due to lack of evidence (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
CHITTARANJAN DASH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 17th October, 2015 passed in C.T. Case No.3664 of 2014 by the S.D.J.M. Bhubaneswar whereby the court took cognizance of offence under Sections 420 /467/468/471/120-B IPC involving the Petitioner along with others.
3. The background facts of the case is that on 22nd September, 2014 the complainant, K. Jagannathan, Chief Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Bhubaneswar Branch situated over Plot No.N-1/40, IRC Village, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda alleged that the State Bank of Travancore, Bhubaneswar Branch had sanctioned financial assistance to the tune of Rs.600 lakhs (working capital limit of Rs.500 lakhs and letter of credit limit of Rs.100 lakhs) to M/s. Chhotray Suppliers, a partnership firm having its office at Plot No.2008/1199, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. Mr. Siba Narayan Chhotray is the Managing partner and Mrs. Swapna Chhotray is the partner of the firm. Mr. Siba Narayan Chhotray is also the Managing Director of M/s. Srabani Constructions Pvt. Ltd wherein Mrs. Swapna Chhotray is the Director. Necessary security and documents were executed by Mr. Siba Narayan Chhotray and Mrs. Swapna Chhotray in favour of State of Bank of Travancore, Bhubaneswar Branch as per the terms and conditions laid down in the sanction letter given by the complainant, inter alia, on mortgage of immovable property belonging to Mrs. Swapna Chhotray and M/s. Srabani Constructions Pvt. Ltd. , Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. M/s. Srabani Constructions Pvt. Ltd. had mortgaged the property situated over Plot No.89, pertaining to Khata No.82/23 measuring Ac.0.721 decimals in Mouza-Damodarpur, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar in favour of State of Bank of Travancore, Bhubaneswar Branch belonging to M/s. Srabani Constructions Pvt. Ltd. which they obtained through sale deed bearing No.4872, dated 24th September, 2004 of SRO, Khandagiri. The mortgage was created by Sri Siba Narayan Chhotray in the capacity as the Managing Director of the company vide Resolution dated 18th December, 2012. Mr. Siba Narayan Chhotray and Mrs. Swapna Chhotray remained guarantors to the facility granted in favour of M/s. Chhotray Suppliers and executed guarantee documents in favour of State of Bank of Travancore, Bhubaneswar Branch. Mr. Siba Narayan Chhotray in the capacity as Managing Director of M/s. Srabani Constructions Pvt. Ltd. registered the charge in respect of the mortgaged property in favour of the Bank with Registrar of Companies, Cuttack on 20th December, 2012 by filing Form No.8. During the course of operation of working capital account for the cash credit limit to the tune of Rs.500 lakhs, M/s. Chhotray Suppliers serviced the interest charge regularly. Bank in regular course of business for search report on 16th June, 2014 noticed that at Registrar of Companies, Bank’s charge over the mortgaged property has been shown as satisfied on 12th June, 2013. That the alleged accused persons in the above referred C.T.Case stated to have submitted a scanned letter of “No Objection Certificate” purportedly issued by the Bank stating that M/s. Chhotray Suppliers have repaid the entire dues to the Bank (working capital Rs.500 lakhs and letter of credit limit of Rs.100 lakhs) in full and there is no outstanding from M/s. Chhotray Suppliers along with charge satisfaction in Form No.17 digitally signed by Sathua Laxmidhar, (an employee working under Mr. Siba Narayan Chhotray,). as Chief Manager of the State Bank of Travancore, Bhubaneswar Branch to the Registrar of Companies satisfying corporate guarantee of M/s. Srabani
A professional's submission of documents on client instructions does not incur criminal liability unless there is direct evidence of conspiracy or deliberate misconduct.
A legal professional cannot be criminally liable for merely providing a legal opinion on documents later found to be forged, without evidence of intentional participation in fraud or conspiracy.
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.
The absence of tangible evidence to establish any connection or collusion between the petitioner and other co-accused persons for defrauding the bank led to the quashing of the proceeding against the....
The court can take cognizance based on a protest petition and act under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The acceptance of the final form does not debar the Magistrate from taking cognizance based on the ....
An advocate is not criminally liable for identifying clients based solely on presented documents unless underlying deceit is apparent.
The liability against an opining advocate arises only when the lawyer was an active participant in a plan to defraud the bank.
For quashing criminal proceedings, allegations must clearly establish participation and responsibility; mere supervisory roles or lack of direct involvement do not suffice for culpability.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.