Uttarakhand High Court
Anangpal Malik vs Special Judge (Cbi) on 20 June, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Judgment reserved on: -03.04.2025
Judgment delivered on:-20.06.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.445 of 2018
( Under Section 397/ 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code)
Anangpal Malik ........Revisionist
Vs.
Special Judge (CBI), Dehradun
and others .......... Respondent/Opp. Party
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Ms. Namrata Malik, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Piyush Garg and Mr. Shakti Saurabh Purohit, Advocates for the
respondents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of present criminal revision, the revisionist
seeks to set aside the order dated 01.10.2018, passed by learned
Special Judge (CBI), Dehradun, in CBI Case No.7 of 2016, CBI Vs.
V.N. Sinha, whereby the prayer of discharge was rejected under
Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC were framed against the
revisionist.
2. The revisionist who is an Advocate, was charge-sheeted
by CBI in connection with offences punishable under Sections 120-B,
420, 468 and 471 of IPC. On the basis of the material collected by the
Investigating agency during the course of investigation, charge for the
offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC
was framed by learned Special Judge (CBI), Dehradun on 01.10.2018.
The accused-revisionist has challenged the same by way of present
revision.
3. It is an admitted fact that the revisionist is a practicing
Advocate and was not a Panel Lawyer of P.N.B. The allegation
against the revisionist is that he gave a false non-encumbrance
certificate to one Mr. Ram Avatar who stood as guarantor to a loan
sanctioned by P.N.B.
2
4. It is contention of counsel for the revisionist that he acted
bona fide and gave his legal opinion only on the basis of certified
copies of sale-deed and khatauni which was produced before him by
his client. He further submits that as the revisionist was not a Panel
Lawyer, the bank was not at all bound to entertain the N.E.C. prepared
by the revisionist. He also submitted that initially the loan was
sanctioned and approved without the said N.E.C. and the revisionist is
being made a scapegoat for wrongful and illegal acts of the officer of
the bank. He submitted that he is being wrongly framed for honest
discharge of his professional duties.
5. It is vehemently argued by counsel for the revisionist that
there is no material in the charge sheet or FIR to show that the present
revisionist has colluded with other accused or to show that any
fabricated document has either been produced or used by the
revisionist. He submits that even if entire allegation made in FIR are
taken at their face value still no offence is made out against the
revisionist as the liability of an Advocate who gave a legal opinion
will arise only when such Advocate could have been shown to be
actively participating in a plan to defraud the bank. He relied on the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation Vs. K. Narayan Rao arising out of SLP (Crl) No.6975 of
2011 and of this High Court rendered in the case of Jai Prakash
Gupta Vs. CBI reported in 2014 SCC Online Uttarakhand 1739
6. It is further submitted by counsel for the revisionist that
there is no material to show that the loan was sanctioned by the bank
solely on the basis of opinion given by revisionist. He also submits
that the opinion of the revisionist, whereby Ram Avatar name has
been mutated is concluded, it is not a sufficient document to prove the
title and ownership and the bank has itself failed to verify the same
and has sifted the onus of the same on revisionist.
7. The learned counsel for the C.B.I. relying on his counter
affidavit submits that prima facie offences punishable under Sections
420, 468 and 471 of IPC r/w 120-B of IPC were made out against the
3
revisionist. He contended that the revisionist submitted a false report
mentioning the mutation of land is in favour of some Ram Avatar who
on investigation found out to be a fictitious person who could not be
traced during entire investigation. He further submitted that the
revisionist submitted a certificate to the bank inspite of the fact that he
was not a Panel Lawyer. This clearly shows his complicity with other
accused persons. The learned counsel also submitted that although the
first loan was sanctioned before the certificate of revisionist, but the
loan in-question was sanctioned after the false certificate. He also
apprised the Court regarding the fact that this Court and even the
Apex Court has already opined that the judgment of Central Bureau of
Investigation Vs. K. Narayan Rao (supra) is not applicable in the case
of the present revisionist.
8. The revisionist in his rejoinder affidavit submitted that he
has issued the non-encumbrance certificate based upon record of Sub-
Registrar’s Office, Delhi. He further stated that he admits that no fees
was paid by the Bank to the revisionist for the alleged certificate, but
he was not aware that his certificate will be used for enhancing the
loan. He further states that he has done his work with utmost honesty
and on the basis of records produced before him and the total foulplay
is of bank officials. He submitted that as per Central Bureau of
Investigation Vs. K. Narayan Rao judgment an Advocate cannot be
made liable only for discharge of his professional duties.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. On perusing the
material available on record and keeping in mind that the trial before
the learned Special Judge (CBI) is at an advanced stage, this Court
does not deem it appropriate to interfere in the on-going proceedings
particularly so when the case at hand has some twisted facts, the truth
of which could only by unearth by a proper trial. Moreover, the
revisionist heavily relies on the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation Vs. K. Narayan Rao, which the Co-ordinate Bench of
High Court of Uttarakhand in C482 No.1767 of 2016 has already
stated that is not applicable in the case of the present revisionist (SLP
(Cri) No.308 of 2017 there against was also rejected), therefore, to
4
uphold judicial comity, this Court is not inclined to go into details of
the said argument and is therefore of the same view as that of the
earlier Bench. Moreover in both case laws, relied upon by the
revisionist, the accused were the Panel Lawyers, but here in the case
in hand admittedly the revisionist is not the Panel Lawyer of the bank.
So in peculiar facts of the present case both the case laws relied upon
by the revisionist are of no help to him. Revisionist was also named in
the FIR since beginning.
10. The offshoot of the above discussion is that the present
revision is dismissed and the order dated 01.10.2018 passed by
learned Special Judge (CBI) is hereby upheld.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
20.06.2025
SK