LexCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, HYDERABAD versus K. NARAYANA RAO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 54 A CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, HYDERABAD B v. K. NARAYANA RAO (Criminal Appeal No. 1460 of 2012) SEPTEMBER 21, 2012 [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: c s. 482 - Quashing of criminal prosecution - Scope - A/legation that respondent, an advocate on the panel of a Bank, submitted false legal opinion to the Bank in respect of housing loans, and along with other conspirators defrauded the Bank's money - High Court quashed charge sheet against D the respondent - Propriety of - Held: Liability against the respondent would have arisen had he been an active participant in a plan to defraud the Bank - In the instant case, no evidence to prove that respondent was abetting or aiding the original conspirators - Merely because his legal opinion may not be acceptable, he cannot be mulcted with criminal E prosecution, particularly, in absence of tangible evidence that he associated with other conspirators -At the most, respondent may be liable for gross negligence or professional misconduct if it is established by acceptable evidence - He cannot be charged u/ss.420 and 109 /PC along with other conspirators F without proper and acceptable link between them - No prima facie case against him - High Court right in quashing criminal proceedings against the respondent - Penal Code, 1860 - s.120B rlw ss. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 109 - Prevention G of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.13(2) rlw s.13(1)(d). ss.227 and 228 - Framing of charges - Discharge of accused - When warranted - Held: While exercising jurisdiction u/s. 227, the Magistrate should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the H 54 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, HYDERABAD v. 55 K. NARAYANA RAO evidence as if he was conducting a trial - If the Magistrate A finds that there is no prima facie evidence or the evidence placed is totally unworthy of credit, it is his duty to discharge the accused at once. Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 120A and 1208 - Criminal 8 conspiracy - Essence of - Held: Is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both - However, it is a matter of common experience that direct evidf?nce to prove conspiracy is rarely available - Accordingly, C the circumstances proved before and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused - Even if some acts are proved to have committed, it must be clear that they were so committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused persons who were parties to the alleged conspiracy - Inferences from such D proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explanation - An offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inference which are not supported by cogent clnd E acceptable evidence. Negligence - Professionals - When may be held liable for negligence - Held: A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings, viz., either he was not F possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. Advocates - Duty of - Held: A lawyer owes an "unremitting loyalty" to the interests of the client - It is the lawyer's G .responsibility to act in a manner that would best advance the interest of the client. The CBI registered an FIR against A-1 and A-2, the then Branch Manager and the Assistant Manager, H 56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R. A respectively of the Vijaya Bank, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 471 read with Section 109 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for abusing their official position as public B servants and for having conspired with private individuals, viz., A-3 and A-4 and other unknown persons for defrauding the bank by sanctioning and disbursement of housing loans to 22 borrowers in violation of the Bank's rules and guidelines and thereby causing c wrongful loss of Rs. 1.27 crores to the Bank and corresponding gain for themselves. In the charge sheet filed by CBI, the respondent, who is a legal practitioner and a panel advocate for the V
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.