Jharkhand High Court
Rajeev Ranjan Arvind @ Rajeev Ranjan vs The Union Of India Through C.B.I on 15 June, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 JHA 227
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 287 of 2020
Rajeev Ranjan Arvind @ Rajeev Ranjan ... Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through C.B.I. ... Respondent
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellant : M/s Ajit Kr. Singh, Pran Pranay, Advs.
For the C.B.I. : Mr. Rohit Sinha, Adv. 03 / 15.06.2020 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Pran Pranay, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter regarding the payment of Rs. 860/- as authentication fees and Rs. 15/- for Welfare Fund Stamp and he personally undertakes to deposit the same and also undertakes to file the type copy of different pages pointed out at sl. no. 9 (xii) within four weeks from today.
Considering the personal undertaking given by Mr Pran Pranay- learned counsel for the appellant, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter are ignored for the present.
This appeal will be heard.
Admit.
Call for the Lower Court Records.
List the appeal for hearing after receipt of the Lower Court Records.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) I.A. No. 3325 of 2020 Mr. Ajit Kr. Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allegation against the appellant is that the appellant has gave a legal opinion regarding a property which was mortgaged by the borrower of one account of Bank of Baroda and later on, the said property was found to be not having clear title for the area as described in the said opinion. It is further submitted by Mr. Ajit Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is not arraigned as an accused in the FIR and he was only the panel advocate of the bank and gave opinion on the basis of the documents and material placed before him and the appellant had no knowledge that the document placed before him regarding the mortgaged land were false and forged. It next submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence to connect the appellant with the other conspirators for causing loss to the institution. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CBI v. K. Narayana Rao, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 512 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in paragraphs 30 and 31 has held as under:
"30. Therefore, the liability against an opining advocate arises only when the lawyer was an active participant in a plan to defraud the Bank. In the given case, there is no evidence to prove that A-6 was abetting or aiding the original conspirators.
31. However, it is beyond doubt that a lawyer owes an "unremitting loyalty" to the interests of the client and it is the lawyer's responsibility to act in a manner that would best advance the interest of the client. Merely because his opinion may not be acceptable, he cannot be mulcted with the criminal prosecution, particularly, in the absence of tangible evidence that he associated with other conspirators. At the most, he may be liable for gross negligence or professional misconduct if it is established by acceptable evidence and cannot be charged for the offence under Sections 420 and 109 IPC along with other conspirators without proper and acceptable link between them. It is further made clear that if there is a link or evidence to connect him with the other conspirators for causing loss to the institution, undoubtedly, the prosecuting authorities are entitled to proceed under criminal prosecution. Such tangible materials are lacking in the case of the respondent herein."
The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment of of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P.D. Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 2 SCC 556, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph 8 has held as under:
8. There is a world of difference between the giving of improper legal advice and the giving of wrong legal advice. Mere negligence unaccompanied by any moral delinquency on the part of a legal practitioner in the exercise of his profession does not amount to professional misconduct. In re a Vakil, Coutts Trotter, C.J. followed the decision In re G. Mayor Cooke and said that:
"Negligence by itself is not professional misconduct; into that offence there must enter the element of moral delinquency. Of that there is no suggestion here, and we are therefore able to say that there is no case to investigate, and that no reflexion adverse to his professional honour rests upon Mr M. The decision was followed by the Calcutta High Court In re An Advocate and by the Allahabad High Court In the matter of An Advocate of Agra and by this Court In the matter of P. An Advocate"
It is next submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been in custody since 5 months and 20 days after his conviction and he has very good grounds to agitate in this appeal and the co-accused has already been admitted to bail by this court vide order dated 28.05.2020 in I.A. no. 3184 of 2020 in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 49 of 2020 hence the sentence of the appellant be suspended and he be admitted to bail.
Learned counsel for the CBI opposes the prayer of the appellant.
Considering aforesaid facts of the case, the appellant named above is the sentence of the appellant will remain suspended and the appellant is directed to be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-(twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in connection with R.C. case no. 14 (S)/2008-AHD-R, with the condition that he will cooperate with the hearing of the appeal.
This interlocutory application stands allowed.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) AFR-Smita/-