and perusing the record of the case alongwith the factual
report submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor as well
as the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court is of the
opinion that in totality, the only allegation against the
petitioners is that they were panel lawyers of the Bank
and were supposed to furnish their professional advice
regarding the documents submitted by the loanee.
13. The advice rendered by the petitioners has
apparently gone wrong, but such a wrong would not
entitle the respondent to prosecute a lawyer, as it does
not amount to any criminal culpability. The petitioners at
the most may be liable for gross negligence or
professional misconduct, if it is established by the
evidence, but they cannot be charged for the offences, as
alleged, alongwith the other conspirators.
14. It is not the case of the prosecution that the
petitioners were conspirators alongwith the loanee or had
direct link with them, so as to enter into the conspiracy to
cause loss to the Bank. If any such material was on
record, then of course, the prosecution could have
proceeded against the petitioners. But since there is no
such fact available on record, therefore, the prosecution
of the lawyers, merely on the basis of their professional
advice, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central
Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad (supra) also
observed that rendition of legal opinion cannot be
construed as an offence.
16. This Court also takes note of the fact that it is
not possible for the panel advocate to investigate the
genuineness of the documents and he can only peruse the
contents and conclude whether the title was conveyed
through a document or not, which has been done in this
case. It shall not be possible for a lawyer to render
professional advice, in case a wrong advice results into a
case for criminal prosecution against him, and in such
circumstances, the system of justice delivery shall suffer,
as lawyer being an important component of the justice
delivery system would not be able to give his professional
advice without fear and favour.
17. It is also not the case of the prosecution that
the petitioners were themselves involved in forgery or in
creation of illegal documents for committing fraud with
the Banking institution.
18. In light of the aforesaid discussions, this
Court deems it appropriate to allow the present
misc.petitions and the same are accordingly allowed. FIR
No.54/2009 registered at Police Station, Shastri Nagar,
Jodhpur for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and
471 IPC is quashed qua the present petitioners only.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2786 / 2017
Rajendra Singh V State of Rajasthan
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
29/08/2017
