Calcutta High Court quashes criminal case against lawyer who provided incorrect legal advice

The Calcutta High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against an advocate accused of providing false and improper legal advice that was instrumental in sanction of a bank loan to a now Non-Performing Asset (NPA)-turned company [Bhaskar Banerjee v CBI]..Justice Ananda Kumar Mukherjee found that there were no imputations in the chargesheet or the first information report (FIR) to reflect that the petitioner advocate had entered into any agreement to do any illegal act.“The act of the petitioner in submitting a wrong report without examining the basic tenets of ownership and possession of the property reveals his want of professional skill for which he may be held negligent, but in absence of tangible material it would not imply that he conspired with the principal accused persons in defrauding the bank,” the single-judge observed..The forged documents were submitted to the bank and given to the petitioner for consideration, who submitted a wrong verification report.The High Court said that this did not lead to the conclusion that the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy to submit a false report.“There is no allegation or material in the charge sheet that the petitioner made any wrongful gain from the co-accused persons or he had any pecuniary benefit for preparing a wrong search report in favour of the company,” the Court underscored. .It was further noted that the petitioner appeared to have been negligent by not fulfilling his duties in a proper manner. However, it did not lead to any presumption that the petitioner had connections with the actual beneficiaries.While quashing the proceedings against the petitioner, the Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v K Narayana Rao, in which it was held that,“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.”.With this, the plea for quashing of the case was allowed..Advocates Debasish Roy, Avik Ghatak and Amit Ranjan Pati appeared for the petitioner, The respondents were represented by advocates P Bajpayee, Kausik De and Mohini Majumder..[Read Judgment]