S.RAM YADAV Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition the Petitioner challenges the orders dated 31st March, 2009 and 8th April, 2009 directing and framing charge against the Petitioner for offences under Section 420/467/468/471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short "the PC Act?) and in the alternative Section 109 read with Section 420 of the IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the job assigned to the Petitioner was only of legal search and he was not required to look into whether the property was vacant or constructed which was the job of the valuer and not the Petitioner. An inadvertent/ negligent mistake in noting the difference in the area in the sale deed cannot hold the Petitioner liable for criminal misconduct, when the document was found genuinely registered with the Sub-Registrar. The Petitioner in his legal search report had asked the bank officials to follow the safeguards and in case the safeguards would have been adhered to, the loss as alleged would not have been caused.

(3.) Learned counsel for the CBI contends that due to active connivance of the Petitioner and on the basis of the search report of the Petitioner, loan was sanctioned to the main accused by the bank. The Petitioner failed to even notice that the copy of the sale deed in possession of the Petitioner for conducting the search report stated the area to be 9183.6 sq. mtr whereas the actual land in question and as per the sale deed registered with the Sub- Registrar was 83.6 Sq. mtr. The Petitioner did not even visit the site and opined that the property was fit for mortgage. The Petitioner failed to take report from the UPSIDC to see whether the property was mortgaged or not.