ASHWINI KAMAL SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 15.10.2014 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI (Central), U.P., Lucknow in Court Case No.3 of 2010, Crime No.RC -8(A) of 2007, under Sections 120 -B, 420 IPC, Police Station CBI/ACB, District Lucknow.

(2.) HEARD Sri P. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bireshwar Nath, learned counsel for the CBI.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner submitted a valuation report in respect of Property No.117/1997, Purani Basti, Kakadeo, Kanpur. The petitioner is a valuer. The report was submitted to the Bank for sanction of housing loan of Rs.8,00,000/ -. The property in respect of which the valuation report has been submitted was a temple but the petitioner as per report, valued the same as a single storey house after physical inspection mentioning it to be House No.117/ 197. The property is situated in Kanpur Town which must bear the number of property. Admittedly, the house, which has been valued, is not the House No.117/197. The petitioner is alleged to be a conspirator along with other co -accused including the Bank officials, the borrower etc. The plea that the petitioner inspected the property which has been shown by borrower and bank officers and he being valuer is not supposed to fix the identity of the property, are the questions which could be considered during trial on the basis of evidence adduced. These questions are based on facts and virtually defence of the petitioner. The law cited by the petitioner in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. K. Narayana Rao, 2012 9 SCC 512 on fact cannot be applied at this stage. The judgment of Madras High Court in L.N. Rajagopalan Vs. State decided on 10.08.2009 in Crl. R.C. No.1063 of 2008 is a judgment wherein it has been held that valuer is not supposed to look into validity or authenticity of document. However, the identity of property before submitting the report must be ascertained especially when the property is situated in city having house number. In this case, the number of inspected building may be verified from the number mentioned on the property itself or by showing the nearly properties. The petitioner has not done so. Thus, the petitioner cannot take the advantage of these judgements.