RAKESH CHANDRA GOYAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of the instant petition under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings of the Case No.03/2010 (State vs. V.K. Srivastava & Others), pending in the Court of learned Special Judge Anti Corruption (Central) CBI, ACB, Lucknow and quashing of the charge -sheet submitted by the CBI in FIR bearing No. RC 0062007A0008 of 2007, under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) P.C. Act. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the order dated 01.01.2010 passed by the learned court below whereby the learned court below has passed the summoning order calling upon the petitioner to appear and face the trial.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to the aforesaid petition are that the Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Kanpur Zone, Kanpur has lodged an FIR with CBI on 30.06.2007. It was alleged in the FIR that during the period from 14.11.2005 to 07.11.2006, the Senior Manager alongwith other bank employees conspired with some unknown persons and in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, they sanctioned Housing Loans on the basis of forged and fictitious documents in the name of non -existent borrowers by abusing their official position. The CBI conducted the investigation and submitted charge -sheet against the co -accused persons and also against the present petitioner, who is an Advocate and is also panel lawyer of the Bank of India. The allegation against him in the charge -sheet is that Non Encumbrance Certificate and legal opinion was given by him to the Bank and acting on the legal opinion of the petitioner, the loans were advanced. The petitioner gave legal opinion to the effect that after verification, the borrower was found genuine and he was also found to hold immovable property. It has also been alleged that the petitioner actually did not visit spot and without physical verification, he gave the wrong report and the Bank acting on the basis of the legal opinion given by the petitioner, sanctioned loans to the borrowers. The CBI conducted the investigation and finding that there was sufficient material to proceed with the case, submitted charge -sheet and acting on the charge -sheet, learned court below took cognizance and issued summoning order requiring the petitioner to appear and face the trial.

(3.) I have heard Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bireshwar Nath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI.