HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.P.NO. 2347 OF 2008 DATED: 09.07.2010 BETWEEN: K.Narayana Rao .. Petitioner And Central Bureau of Investigation .. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.P.NOS. 2347 OF 2008 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings against the accused No.6 in C.C.No.44 of 2007 (Crime No.36 of 2005) on the file of the Special Judge for the cases of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad. I have heard Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for C.B.I. The petitioner is A6 in C.C.No.44 of 2007. The brief facts essential for considering the present petition may be stated as follows: Mr P.Radha Gopal Reddy-A1, the then Branch Manager and the then Assistant Manager of Vijaya Bank, Narayanaguda Branch, Hyderabad having conspired with the private individuals including builder and impersonator defrauded the bank by sanctioning and disbursement of housing loans. According to the prosecution, they abused their official position as public servants in the matter of sanctioning and disbursement of 22 housing loans to the borrowers relying on improper sale deeds and fabricated salary slips. In the aforesaid conspiracy, it is stated that A2 processed the impugned housing loans and A1 sanctioned them. The petitioner/A6 is a legal practitioner and an advocate to the bank. The allegation against him is that he gave legal opinions in respect 10 loans as a panel advocate to the Bank and one Mr K.C.Das-A7 issued valuation reports. It has been specifically alleged in the charge sheet that both the advocate (petitioner/A6) and the valuer have failed to point out the actual ownership of the property and failed to bring out the ownership details and name of the apartments in their reports and that they failed to point out the falsehood in the construction permission issued by the municipal authorities. In this context, I may point out that as could be seen from the contents which are the circulars of the bank, they indicate that the Branch Manager should personally visit the plots and inspect the same to satisfy himself with regard to the valuation and acceptability of the property as security for the loan. This apart, various other guidelines have been issued in the circulars in relation to sanctioning of loans to the salaried employees. According to the prosecution, the Branch Manager is under a duty to personally examine as to whether the property offered as security is having clear title. He is also bound to examine all the documents obtained for the purpose of sanctioning housing loan. Thus, the duty of the petitioner, who is the panel advocate of the bank is only to verify the documents and give his opinion. There is no material gathered by the investigating agency saying that the petitioner had conspired with the remaining accused for committing the offence. Nowhere it is mentioned in the charge sheet that from the inception, the petitioner joined hands with A1 to A3 and purposely gave false opinion. The petitioner only gave his opinion basing on the material placed before him and I do not think that he is under the duty to verify the clandestine transactions if any relating to the documents which were not at all placed before him. Even if it is considered that he was negligent in giving his opinion, he cannot be implicated as one of the conspirators of the offence punishable under Section 420 read with 109 IPC. On the aforesaid analysis, I am of the considered view that the entire material even critically examined does not disclose any criminal offence committed by the petitioner. Therefore, the criminal petition succeeds and the proceedings in C.C.No.44 of 2007 insofar as the petitioner/A6 is concerned, are quashed. The criminal petition is allowed. ___________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated:09.07.2010 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.P.NO. 2347 OF 2008 DATED: 09.07.2010