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.

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. By means of this application, the Petitioner, Basanta Kumar Behera, a practicing advocate, has approached this Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the order dated 16.05.2016 passed by the learned SDJM, Keonjhar, taking cognizance against him for offences under Sections 120 -B/468/471/34 IPC in connection with G.R. Case No. 1338 of 2014, arising out of Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No. 273 of 2014.

2. The background facts of the case are that, in a written complaint dated 04.08.2014 submitted by Pratap Chandra Nayak, the then Senior Branch Manager of Syndicate Bank, Keonjhar Branch (hereinafter referred to as the „Bank‟), alleged that during the period of 2011–2012, the Bank had sanctioned 11 tractor loans to various individuals and a cash credit loan of Rs. 10 lakhs to one Duryodhan Das, the proprietor of M/s Rahul Enterprises. These loans were sanctioned based on mortgage of immovable properties, purportedly supported by title deeds, RORs, rent receipts, and other revenue documents. Subsequent internal audit conducted during May–June, 2013, revealed that these documents were forged. A second legal opinion obtained from Advocate Ajay Kumar Nath confirmed the forgery. It was discovered that the documents bore fake seals and signatures of public authorities, and were created with the intent to defraud the Bank. Undeniably, one Duryodhan Das, had introduced the borrowers to the Bank and received the loan disbursements. He later absconded, closing his business. The Petitioner herein, had rendered legal opinions certifying the genuineness of these forged documents. As a result, he was arrayed as an accused along with Duryodhan Das, the borrowers, and the then Branch Manager, Ramesh Chandra Giri. The Investigating Officer, after examining several witnesses including Bank staff and obtaining relevant documents, filed Charge Sheet No. 01 dated 31.03.2016, implicating the Petitioner under Sections 120 -B, 468, 471, and 34 IPC . It is alleged that the Petitioner, in connivance with the Branch Manager and others, knowingly validated forged documents, leading to a loss of around Rs. 69,29,000 to the Bank.

3. Mr. D. P. Dhal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submits that the role of the Petitioner was limited to providing a legal opinion based solely on documents supplied by the Bank officials, and he had no reason or obligation to verify their authenticity from the original sources such as the Sub-Registrar or Tehsil offices. Mr. Dhal further asserts that the Petitioner had no knowledge of the forgery and had not entered into any conspiracy with the co-accused. He acted in good faith and without any mens rea. Mr. Dhal further contends that the charge of conspiracy against him is unfounded and unsupported by any direct evidence and placed his reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CBI Hyderabad vs. K. Narayan Rao reported in (2013) 1 OLR (SC) 74, where it was held that mere submission of a wrong legal opinion, in the absence of any material showing connivance with other accused, cannot attract criminal liability; a similar position has also been reaffirmed by this Court in Tankadhara Mishra v. Republic of India reported in (2022) 87 OCR 397. Mr. Dhal asserts that legal professionals cannot be criminally prosecuted merely because a document later turns out to be forged, unless there is specific material indicating intentional participation in the fraudulent act. He reiterates that the Petitioner‟s professional duty was confined to the documents handed over to him, and there is no material on record to show that he had knowledge of their forged nature or that he was part of any fraudulent arrangement. Mr. Dhal fi