VIRENDRANATH BHAGWAT PRASAD TIWARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Advocate appearing for the Applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The Applicant is a practicing advocate. Offence has been registered under sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 406 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence has been registered at the instance of the State Bank of India. The co-accused submitted an Agreement of Sale in respect of a flat and other documents to the said Bank for obtaining housing loan. The original documents were forwarded by the Bank to the Applicant who was a Panel Advocate of the Bank for verification of title. The case of the prosecution is that the documents which were submitted by the borrower (co-accused) were found to be fabricated. The allegation against the Applicant is that he has cheated the Bank by not verifying the documents.

(2.) THE learned Advocate for the Applicant submitted that at highest the Applicant might have committed an error in issuing a title report and it was not the duty of the Applicant to verify whether the documents forwarded by the Bank were genuine. The learned A.P.P. submitted that the Applicant was duty bound to verify whether the documents which were forwarded by the Bank were genuine documents, and without verification of the genuineness of the documents, he has issued a title report stating that the title of borrower to the flat in question is clear and marketable. The learned A.P.P. submitted that co-accused are absconding and therefore, no case is made out for granting of anticipatory Bail as allegations against the Applicant are of very serious nature.

(3.) IT is difficult at this stage to accept that it was the duty of the Applicant to ascertain whether the documents which were forwarded by the Bank were genuine documents. It must be noted here that in the title report, the Applicant has added a note of caution that it will be advisable to obtain No Objection Certificate from the Promoter to mortgage the said flat in question. At this stage, there is no material on record to show that the Applicant is part of the conspiracy by the co-accused. At highest what can be said is that the title investigation report submitted by the Applicant is incorrect or that the Applicant has not performed his duty properly.