Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

AIR 2010 SC 663 MSM,J

26. Keeping in view, the broad guidelines for exercising power under Sections 239 and 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C., I would like to advert to the allegations made in the present Calendar Cases against this petitioner.

27. The main allegations are that the petitioner, being a panel valuer of immovable property on behalf of the complainant Banks, was asked to value the properties of the borrowers before advancing loans to them. The panel valuer has to follow the guidelines issued by the Banks for fixing value of the property and submit his report in the proforma prescribed by the guidelines issued by various Banks. The panel valuer is also expected to visit the property personally, verify the permits granted by the authorities concerned to construct the building and point out the deviations, if any, etc., and submit his valuation report in accordance with law. But, in the present cases, the petitioner did not visit the properties personally for advancing loans and submitted valuation reports in collusion with the borrowers and Bank officials. Apart from that, though the property was not in existence on ground, the petitioner fixed the value. This fact is supported by the joint inspection report of the Branch Manager of the Bank along with the other valuer. Therefore, submitting valuation report to enable the borrowers to borrow huge amounts from the Bank in collusion with the employees of the Bank, though not directly supported by any material, can be inferred MSM,J based on the conduct of the petitioner prior to and subsequent to the commission of the offence i.e., submitting a valuation report to the Bank, which made the bank to part with huge amount. Therefore, the petitioner allegedly committed various offences referred to above. In all the three cases, the common offences are under Sections 120B, 420 and 468 I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.