1 cri.wp no. 475 of 2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 475 OF 2010 Shri. Ram Nagesh Deshpande ... Petitioner Versus Union of India ... Respondent Mr. Sushil Nimbkar for the petitioner. Mrs. Revati Mohite-Dere for respondent. Mrs. V.R. Bhosale, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : FEBRUARY 07, 2011 P.C. 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the order dated 27th November, 2009 passed by the Special Court for Greater Mumbai rejecting the application for discharge filed by the petitioner. 2. The Petitioner along with two officers of the Punjab National Bank and two other persons who had secured credit 2 cri.wp no. 475 of 2010 facilities from the Bank is sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 120-B, 420 of Indian Penal Code and under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The proceedings under Prevention of Corruption Act are against one of the Bank Officers. It is alleged that two bank officers (accused nos. 1 and 2) abused their official position and entered into criminal conspiracy with the borrowers, (accused nos. 3 and 4) to sanction cash credit limit, term loan etc. to M/s. Morval Engineering (I) Pvt Ltd and M/s. Amit Engineering. The Petitioner herein who is accused no. 5 had given a search report dated 16th January, 2004 in respect of the properties to be mortgaged to the complainant bank. The Petitioner is admittedly not on the panel of Punjab National Bank. Based on the search report stating that there is no encumbrance on the property sought to be mortgaged, Punjab National Bank, according to the prosecution, proceeded to sanction different loan facilities to accused nos. 3 and 4 and in the process the bank is defrauded to the extent of Rs. 91.41 lacs. 3 cri.wp no. 475 of 2010 3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that there are no specific allegations against him in the petition making out prima facie case of having committed offence of cheating. All that the petitioner had done, in discharge of his professional duty, was to issue search report in respect of the properties belonging to accused nos. 3 and 4 likely to be mortgaged to the Bank. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had taken every precaution before giving search report. 4. Admittedly the petitioner had not inspected the original documents of title in respect of the properties for which he issued the report stating that the same were encumbranceless. Surprisingly he had not even demanded to see the documents. It was later on revealed to the complainant Bank that the properties had been mortgaged to Vidya Sahakari Bank by deposit of title deeds. Had the petitioner asked for the original title deeds of the properties he would have learnt about the mortgage. Since the very first step into the process of issuing a report that the properties were clear of encumbrances was to 4 cri.wp no. 475 of 2010 inspect the original title deeds and since this step was not taken by the petitioner who is a senior lawyer, it would be difficult to say at this stage that his act was of innocence. 5. It is obvious that the search report given by the petitioner was one of the documents inducing disbursement of loan by the Bank. In the circumstances, the learned Special Judge has rightly held that there is sufficient prima facie material for proceeding against the petitioner. Hence, petition is dismissed. 4. At the request of the learned counsel, ad interim order dated 29th April, 2010 staying further proceedings of Special Case No. 29 of 2007 qua the petitioner is continued for the period of six weeks from today. All authorities to act on authenticated copy of this order. [Judge]