IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE CRR 1218 of 2018 Sabyasachi Mukherjee Vs.

Central Bureau of Investigation For the petitioner : Mr. Snehatosh Majumder Mr. Sattwik Majumder For the CBI : Mr. Amajit De Heard on : 27.08.2025 Judgment on : 09.12.2025 Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order no. 70 dated 16th January, 2018 passed by learned judge, CBI court Alipore, in special case no. 2 of 2013, petitioner Sabyasachi Mukherjee has preferred the instant Application. Before the trial court the present petitioner along with two other accused persons namely accused no. 1 and 5 preferred an application for discharging them from the said proceeding under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Court below after hearing the parties while allowed the prayer of accused no. 5 for discharge but disallowed the prayer made by others including the present petitioner.

2. Petitioner’s contention is that the petitioner was an empanelled Advocate of Vijaya Bank and he was entrusted to do legal scrutiny and to render his opinion in respect of a flat, which arose because one Saradendu Kundu had approached the said bank for a loan of Rs. 10 lakhs for purchasing the said flat from the then owner Shri Tapan Kumar Kundu. Petitioners further contention is that the petitioner’s tasks was to find out the validity of the title of the claimed owner Shri Tapan Kumar Kundu as well as to find out the marketability of such title, whether or not the said property was free from any prior charge/mortgage. The said Tapan Kumar Kundu prior to approach the bank had entered into an agreement for sale with aforesaid proposed purchaser. As was customary the bank referred the proposed purchaser to the petitioner along with the documents in respect of the said property.

3. Petitioner’s further contention is that petitioner scrutinized the title document of shri Tapan Kumar Kundu which in this case was the certified copy in original of judgment and decree passed in Partition suit no. 53 of 1948 and it was found that one Anil Kumar Kundu had been allotted the said proposed property, namely 51/B Shmabhu Nath Pandit Road along with structure standing thereon, who became absolute owner of the same. The property had been mutated thereafter in favour of Tapan Kumar Kundu Son of said Anil Kumar Kundu which was substantiated by the original mutation certificate dated 18.09.1981. The original municipal property tax receipt dated 09.06.2004 and 11.10.2004 showing updated payment for the year 2004 and 2005 were also shown to him and said Tapan Kumar Kundu was found to be in possession of the original of the plan dated 02.08.1982 on the strength of which he has constructed further two stories on the existing building. The agreement for sale dated 04.01.2005 by and between said proposed seller Anil Kumar Kundu and the proposed buyer was found to be in order.

4. The petitioners further case is that he has caused a search to find out whether or not the property sought to be transferred had any prior charge or mortgage for the period from 1992 to till date i.e. 2005 and found that there was no prior charge or mortgage and therefore petitioner herein had rendered his opinion in the format of “Legal Scrutiny Report” in vogue at Vijaya Bank at the material point of time on 24.12.2005. Thereafter in the regular course of the business the bank approved and disbursed a loan of Rs. 10 lakhs in favour of aforesaid proposed buyer Saradendu Kundu and the bank draft was issued in favour of proposed seller Tapan Kumar Kundu. 5. Petitioner’s further contention is that thereafter it appears sometime in 2009-2010 that the authorities in the bank received a complain that the accused no.1 Biswanath Shetty, while posted as senior branch manager, during the period 15.12.2004 - 02.05.2007 allegedly entered into criminal conspiracy with many persons and cheated Vijaya Bank to the t