- (1.) BY means of the instant petition under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings of the Case No.03/2010 (State vs. V.K. Srivastava & Others), pending in the Court of learned Special Judge Anti Corruption (Central) CBI, ACB, Lucknow and quashing of the charge -sheet submitted by the CBI in FIR bearing No. RC 0062007A0008 of 2007, under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) P.C. Act. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the order dated 01.01.2010 passed by the learned court below whereby the learned court below has passed the summoning order calling upon the petitioner to appear and face the trial.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to the aforesaid petition are that the Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Kanpur Zone, Kanpur has lodged an FIR with CBI on 30.06.2007. It was alleged in the FIR that during the period from 14.11.2005 to 07.11.2006, the Senior Manager alongwith other bank employees conspired with some unknown persons and in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, they sanctioned Housing Loans on the basis of forged and fictitious documents in the name of non -existent borrowers by abusing their official position. The CBI conducted the investigation and submitted charge -sheet against the co -accused persons and also against the present petitioner, who is an Advocate and is also panel lawyer of the Bank of India. The allegation against him in the charge -sheet is that Non Encumbrance Certificate and legal opinion was given by him to the Bank and acting on the legal opinion of the petitioner, the loans were advanced. The petitioner gave legal opinion to the effect that after verification, the borrower was found genuine and he was also found to hold immovable property. It has also been alleged that the petitioner actually did not visit spot and without physical verification, he gave the wrong report and the Bank acting on the basis of the legal opinion given by the petitioner, sanctioned loans to the borrowers. The CBI conducted the investigation and finding that there was sufficient material to proceed with the case, submitted charge -sheet and acting on the charge -sheet, learned court below took cognizance and issued summoning order requiring the petitioner to appear and face the trial.
(3.) I have heard Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bireshwar Nath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a practicing lawyer of Kanpur and he has more than twenty five years of practice. He was in the panel of Advocates of the Bank of India and remained attached with the Bank for about ten years. There has been no complaint against him during the aforesaid period. The petitioner was handed over the photostat copies of certain documents with a view to examine and give his opinion. The petitioner as per the instruction of the Bank examined the documents and submitted his Non Encumbrance Report and opinion. The opinion was submitted, on the basis of the records available in the office of Sub -Registrar. The procedure of the Bank is that after receiving the Non Encumbrance Certificate (NEC) from the lawyer, the Bank always gets it checked and approved by the Senior Officers of the Bank. Since the officers of the Bank were involved in criminal conspiracy, they did not check and approve the report on the basis of which, the loans were sanctioned. So far as the charge against the petitioner with regard to the criminal conspiracy is concerned, there is no evidence on record to the effect that the petitioner was in connivance with any of the Bank Officers or any of the borrowers. In respect of the spot visit, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a panel Advocate is not required to visit the spot in connection with the issue of Non Encumbrance Certificate. It is the duty of the surveyor of the Bank to visit the spot for verification. Since the petitioner has not forged any document and there is no evidence against him, hence, the learned court below has wrongly taken cognizance on the charge -sheet and has directed the petitioner to appear and face trial.;