Central Bureau of Investigation vs Navendu Srivastava & Anr

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 19th July, 2018 in Criminal Revision No.194/2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, whereby the High Court quashed the criminal prosecution qua the accused-respondent No.1 (Navendu Srivastava) for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 419, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the sole ground that the investigating Agency could not produce any material to show that the respondent had conspired with the main accused to enter into an agreement with them to do an illegal act as the accusedrespondent was only a panel lawyer of the Bank.

The reason which weighed with the High Court for allowing the revision petition filed by the respondent can be discerned from the following observations :

"Having heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Bireshwar Nath, learned counsel for the C.B.I., and on perusal of the record, I find that the investigating agency could not indicate any material to show that the revisionist, who is panel lawyer of the Bank, conspired with the main accused or entered into any agreement with them to do an illegal thing. The legal opinion given by the revisionist was on the basis of documents provided to him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case referred to above has also observed that the panel lawyer cannot be held liable for the criminal act unless it is shown by cogent evidence that he conspired with main accused. In the present case, I do not find any such evidence to connect the revisionist with the crime.

In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned in this revision dated 20.01.2017 passed by Special Judge C.B.I., West, Lucknow in R.C. No.0062006A0004 relating to Police Station CBI/ACB, Lucknow is set aside and consequently the application for discharge, filed by the revisionist is allowed. The revisionist is discharged form all the offences with which he has been charge-sheeted. However, it is made clear that it will be open for the court below to proceed against other chargesheeted accused persons in accordance with law."

We have perused the charge-sheet which contains allegations against the respondent in the following terms :

"...... Investigation has revealed that the sale deed No.105/05 dated 07.01.05 executed between Mr. Osama Shobra and Hussain Ahmad Abbasi is fake. The said deed was presented for registration in the sub-registrar office by Shri Navendu Srivastava, Advocate, Civil Court, Lucknow who is also the panel lawyer of Allahabad Bank. Shri Navendu Srivastava has also given the Non Encumbrance Certificate regarding House No.M-8, Gole Market, Mahanagar, Lucknow vide his letter dated 24.12.04 wherein he has mentioned that Mr. Hussain Ahmad Abbassi is the actual owner of House No.M-8, Gole Market, Mahanagar, Lucknow whereas investigation has revealed that Mr. Maqsood Ahmad s/o Late Mohd. Siddiqu, Mohd. Shahid, s/o Mohd. Zahid, and Mr. Zaffarullah, s/o Late Nahirullah, the three partners of Parza Builders were the actual owners of the said building w.e.f. 06.01.03. Shri Navendu Srivastava was well aware of the fact that sale deed No.105/05 dated 07.01.05 executed between Mr. Osama Shobra and Hussain Ahmad Abbasi is fake since the same was presented for registration in the Sub-registrar office by him only. Thus knowingly and in conspiracy with the Branch Manager Shri A. N. Sahu and Mr. Osama Shobra he has given a false Non Encumbrance Certificate regarding House No.M-8, Gole Market, Mahanagar,; Lucknow vide his letter dated 24.12.04 which formed the basis of the sanction of housing loan to Mr. Osama Shobra.

Thus, with the active connivance of the Branch Manager, Shri A.N. Sahu, Mr. Suhailur Rahman Abbassi and the penal lawyer Shri Navendu Srivastava, the borrower Mr. Osama Shobra has siphoned the bank's money and thereby the Allahabad Bank has been cheated to the tune of Rs.14.16 lacs and the bank is incurring loss of corresponding amount. The housing loan account No.500456 of Osama Shobra has been declared NPA by the Bank. The borrower is not repaying the dues/installment to Allahabad Bank after availing the housing loan and the total outstanding as on 31/03/06 (i.e. the date on which the loan was declared NPA) is Rs.14.16 lacs.

Thus Shri Amar Nath Sahu while posted and functioning as Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Jankipuram Branch, Lucknow during the 2004-2005 entered into criminal conspiracy with Mr. Osama Shobra, Suhailur Rahaman Abbasi and Shri Navendu Srivastava with a common object to commit offenses of cheating and criminal misconduct and in pursuance to the said criminal conspiracy cheated Allahabad Bank to the tune of Rs.14.16 lacs by dishonestly and fraudulently sanctioning housing loan to Osama Shobra on the basis of fake/bogus Sale Deed and thereby caused wrongful loss to the bank and corresponding gain to themselves......"

The role ascribed to the accused-respondent in the commission of crime is, in the first place, giving non-encumbrance certificate on 24.12.2004 and thereafter of drafting and presentation of sale deed dated 07.01.2005, executed between Osama Shobra and Hussain Ahmad Abbasi. It is not the finding of the High Court that there is no evidence to suggest that the accused-respondent had not drafted or presented the deed for registration. Be that as it may, going by the allegations in the charge-sheet against the respondent No. 1, in our opinion, it would be a matter for trial and the High Court ought not to have quashed the charge-sheet qua him, who had been named as one of the conspirators.

Counsel for the accused-respondent had invited our attention to the decision of this Court in 'Central Bureau of Investigation vs. K. Narayana Rao', reported in (2012) 9 SCC 512, which according to the counsel for accused-respondent involves similar allegation against an advocate.

This submission does not commend us as we find that in that case the only allegation against the respondent (panel advocate) was that he submitted false legal opinion to the Bank in respect of housing loans in the capacity of a panel advocate and did not point out the actual ownership of the properties. In the present case, however, the allegation is very different regarding the role of the respondent herein, which will have to be decided at the trial.

Hence, this appeal succeeds. We set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. Resultantly, the revision application for quashing stands dismissed.

Needless to observe that the trial Court will proceed in the matter in accordance with law. All contentions and other remedies available to the respondent are left open.

The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.