ANINDYA KUMAR MISHRA Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Criminal Revision the petitioner being the accused in S.P.E. Case No.02 of 2010 of the court of Special C.J.M., C.B.I., Bhubaneswar challenges the order dated 25.04.2014 in rejecting his application under Section 227/239 of the Cr.P.C. to discharge him from the alleged offences under Sections 120 -B and 420 of the l.P.C.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in short is that the accused namely Asok Kumar Mohapatra had applied for a loan from the Corporation Bank. Accused Anindya Kumar Mishra, the present petitioner, who was a Penal Advocate of Corporation Bank, after verification of land documents submitted by the loanee, suggested for sanction of the same and on that basis the Bank has sanctioned the loan in favour of the loanee. As they did not repay the loan, the matter was inquired into by the Bank. On enquiry, it came to the notice that the documents which were submitted by the loanee were forged one. The matter was investigated by the C.B.I. During the course of investigation by the C.B.I., it was revealed that the accused Ashok Mohapatra, his wife Rita Mohapatra and Anindya Kumar Mishra, the Penal Advocate of the Corporation Bank entered into criminal conspiracy with each other and in furtherance thereof, cheated the Corporation Bank, Bajrakabati Road, Cuttack and availed mortgaged loan of Rs.6 lakhs and having loan of Rs.8.3 lakhs from the Corporation Bank on the basis of forged lease deed/sale deed of properties thereby causing wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 12,89,350/ - to the Bank, for which C.B.I. submitted charge -sheet for commission of offences under Sections 120 -B, 420, 471 of the I.P.C. against above named three accused persons.

(3.) AFTER appearance of the accused persons, accused no.3 Anindya Kumar Mishra filed an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to discharge him stating that there is no prima facie case against him and he has been falsely implicated in this case. As per the petitioner, there is no material to show that the petitioner has induced the Bank to sanction loan to the borrower. Legal opinion is a lawyer's view on the basis of the documents supplied by the Bank with regard to their legality. This is always provisional and Bank has got the prerogative regarding acceptance of the same. It is further stated that the opinion is a privilege communication and there is no involvement of the present petitioner regarding the fraudulent transaction committed by the other accused persons.