JAI PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
LAWS(UTN)-2013-7-77
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on July 05,2013

JAI PRAKASH GUPTA Appellant
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Admit the criminal revision.
(2.) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavit filed by learned counsel for the revisionist today is taken on record. As prayed for, two weeks' time is granted to learned counsel for the respondent to file counter affidavit (against the affidavit as well as supplementary affidavit filed by the revisionist). Accused no. 3 Jai Prakash Gupta, Advocate, was charge -sheeted by Central Bureau of Investigation in connection with offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. On the basis of the material collected by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC was framed by the learned Special Judge, Anti -Corruption (CBI), Dehradun, on 05.04.2013. The accused revisionist has challenged the same by way of present criminal revision.
(3.) IT is an admitted fact that the revisionist is a practicing lawyer and is panel lawyer of Canara Bank. The allegation against the revisionist is that he gave a false legal scrutiny report to the Canara bank to facilitate co -accused Virendra Singh in obtaining the loan fraudulently. It is the contention of learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist acted bona fide, and it was only on account of second opinion taken by the bank, that the revisionist was implicated in the case. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that on his legal report dated 26.07.2010, Mr. Shankar Saran Agarwal, Advocate (from whom second opinion was sought) mentioned that co -accused Virendra Singh sold the property to various persons even before mortgaging it with the Canara bank on 05.06.2009 and the earlier legal report submitted by the revisionist (in his capacity as panel lawyer of the Canara bank) at the time of mortgage of the property was a false report.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.