SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad
versus
K. Narayana Rao
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1460 OF 2012
SEPTEMBER 21, 2012
JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, J. –
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 09.07.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 2347 of 2008 whereby the High Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Code”) and quashed the criminal proceedings pending against him in CC No. 44 of 2007 (Crime No. 36 of 2005) on the file of the Special Judge for CBI cases, Hyderabad.
3. Brief facts :
(a) According to the prosecution, basing on an information, on 30.11.2005, the CBI, Hyderabad registered an FIR being RC 32(A)/2005 against Shri P. Radha Gopal Reddy (A-1) and Shri Udaya Sankar (A-2), the then Branch Manager and the Assistant Manager, respectively of the Vijaya Bank, Narayanaguda Branch, Hyderabad, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 471 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for abusing their official position as public servants and for having conspired with private individuals, viz., Shri P.Y. Kondala Rao – the builder (A-3) and Shri N.S. Sanjeeva Rao (A-4) and other unknown persons for defrauding the bank by sanctioning and disbursement of housing loans to 22 borrowers in violation of the Bank’s rules and guidelines and thereby caused wrongful loss of Rs. 1.27 crores to the Bank and corresponding gain for themselves. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, A-2 conducted the pre-sanction inspection in respect of 22 housing loans and A-1 sanctioned the same.
(b) After completion of the investigation, the CBI filed charge sheet along with the list of witnesses and the list of documents against all the accused persons. In the said charge sheet, Shri K. Narayana Rao, the respondent herein, who is a legal practitioner and a panel advocate for the Vijaya Bank, was also arrayed as A-6. The duty of the respondent herein as a panel advocate was to verify the documents and to give legal opinion. The allegation against him is that he gave false legal opinion in respect of 10 housing loans. It has been specifically alleged in the charge sheet that the respondent herein (A-6) and Mr. K.C. Ramdas (A-7)-the valuer have failed to point out the actual ownership of the properties and to bring out the ownership details and name of the apartments in their reports and also the falsity in the permissions for construction issued by the Municipal Authorities.
(c) Being aggrieved, the respondent herein (A-6) filed a petition being Criminal Petition No. 2347 of 2008 under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad for quashing of the criminal proceedings in CC No. 44 of 2007 on the file of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. By impugned judgment and order dated 09.07.2010, the High Court quashed the proceedings insofar as the respondent herein (A-6) is concerned.
(d) Being aggrieved, the CBI, Hyderabad filed this appeal by way of special leave.
4. Heard Mr. H.P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellant-CBI and Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel for the respondent (A-6).
5. After taking us through the allegations in the charge sheet presented before the special Court and all other relevant materials, the learned ASG has raised the following contentions:
(i) The High Court while entertaining the petition under Section 482 of the Code has exceeded its jurisdiction. The powers under Section 482 are inherent which are to be exercised in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. The power being extraordinary has to be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional circumstances;
(ii) The High Court has committed an error in holding that no material had been gathered by the investigating agency against the respondent herein (A-6) that he had conspired with the remaining accused for committing the offence; and
(iii) There is no material on record to show that the respondent herein (A-6) did not verify the originals pertaining to housing loans before giving legal opinion and intentionally changed the proforma and violated the Bank’s circulars.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel for the respondent (A-6), after taking us through the charge sheet and the materials placed before the respondent seeking legal opinion, submitted that he has not committed any offence much less an offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 109 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He further submitted that based on the documents placed, the respondent herein after perusing and on satisfying himself, furnished his legal opinion for which he cannot be implicated as one of the conspirators for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 109 IPC.
7. We have carefully perused all the relevant materials and considered the rival submissions.
8. In order to appreciate the stand of the CBI and the defence of the respondent, it is necessary to refer the specific allegations in the charge sheet. The respondent herein has been arrayed as accused No. 6 in the charge sheet and the allegations against him are as under:
“Para 20: Investigation revealed that legal opinions in respect of all these 10 loans have been given by Panel Advocate – Sri K. Narayana Rao (A-6) and valuation reports were given by Approved Valuer – Sri V.C. Ramdas (A-7). Both, the advocate and the valuer, have failed to point out the actual ownership of the property and failed to bring out the ownership details and name of the apartments in their reports. They have also failed to point out the falsehood in the construction permission issued by the municipal authorities.
Para 28: Investigation revealed that the municipal permissions submitted to the bank were also fake.
Para 29: Expert of Finger Print Bureau confirmed that the thumb impressions available on the questioned 22 title deeds pertain to A-3, A-4 and A-5.
Para 30: The above facts disclose that Sri P. Radha Gopal Reddy (A-1) and Sri M. Udaya Sankar (A-2) entered into criminal conspirary with A-3 and abused their official position as public servants by violating the bank norms and in the process caused wrongful gain to A-3 to the extent of Rs.1,00,68,050/- and corresponding wrongful loss to the bank in sanctioning 22 housing loans. Sri P.Y. Kondal Rao (A-3) registered false sale deeds in favour of borrowers using impostors as site owners, produced false municipal permissions and cheated the bank in getting the housing loans. He is liable for conspiracy, cheating, forgery for the purpose of cheating and for using forged documents as genuine. Sri B. Ramanaji Rao (A-4) and Sri R. Sai Sita Rama Rao (A-5) impersonated as site owners, executed the false sale deeds. They are liable for impersonation, conspiracy, cheating, forging a valuable security and forgery for the purpose of cheating. Sri K. Narayana Rao (A-6) submitted false legal opinions and Sri K.C. Ramdas (A-7) submitted false valuation reports about the genuineness of the properties in collusion with A-3 for sanction of the loans by Vijaya Bank, Narayanaguda branch, Hyderabad and abetted the crime. Sri A.V. Subba Rao(A-8) managed verification of salary slips of the borrowers of 12 housing loans in collusion with A-3 and abetted the crime.
Para 33: In view of the above, the accused A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7 & A-8 are liable for offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 109 read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and substantive offences thereof.”
With the above details, let us consider whether there is prima facie allegation(s) and material(s) in order to pursue the trial against the respondent herein. In the same way, we have to see whether the reasoning and the ultimate conclusion of the High Court in quashing the charge sheet against the respondent herein (A-6) is sustainable. We are conscious of the power and jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code for interfering with the criminal prosecution at the threshold.
9. Mr. Raval, learned ASG in support of his contentions relied on the following decisions:
(i) State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, [1977] 4 SCC 39;
(ii) P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and Another, [2010] 2 SCC 398; and
(iii) Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, [2010] 9 SCC 368.
10. The first decision Ramesh Singh (supra) relates to interpretation of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code for the considerations as to discharge the accused or to proceed with trial. Para 4 of the said judgment is pressed into service which reads as under:
“4. Under Section 226 of the Code while opening the case for the prosecution the Prosecutor has got to describe the charge against the accused and state by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. Thereafter comes at the initial stage the duty of the Court to consider the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and to hear the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf. The Judge has to pass thereafter an order either under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. If “the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing”, as enjoined by Section 227. If, on the other hand, “the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which— … (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused”, as provided in Section 228. Reading the two provisions together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. It the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. An exhaustive list of the circumstances to indicate as to what will lead to one conclusion or the other is neither possible nor advisable. We may just illustrate the difference of the law by one more example. If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like even, at the conclusion of the trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end in his acquittal. But if, on the other hand, it is so at the initial stage of making an order under Section 227 or Section 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to be made will be one under Section 228 and not under Section 227.”
11. Discharge of accused under Section 227 of the Code was extensively considered by this Court in P. Vijayan (supra) wherein it was held as under:
“10. ……. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the words “not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts.
11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him.”
12. While considering the very same provisions i.e., framing of charges and discharge of accused, again in Sajjan Kumar (supra), this Court held thus:
“19. It is clear that at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce proves the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.
20. A Magistrate enquiring into a case under Section 209 CrPC is not to act as a mere post office and has to come to a conclusion whether the case before him is fit for commitment of the accused to the Court of Session. He is entitled to sift and weigh the materials on record, but only for seeing whether there is sufficient evidence for commitment, and not whether there is sufficient evidence for conviction. If there is no prima facie evidence or the evidence is totally unworthy of credit, it is the duty of the Magistrate to discharge the accused, on the other hand, if there is some evidence on which the conviction may reasonably be based, he must commit the case. It is also clear that in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 CrPC, the Magistrate should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
Exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 227 and 228 CrPC
21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.”
From the above decisions, it is clear that at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, in that event, it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. A judicial magistrate enquiring into a case under Section 209 of the Code is not to act as a mere post office and has to arrive at a conclusion whether the case before him is fit for commitment of the accused to the Court of Session. He is entitled to sift and weigh the materials on record, but only for seeing whether there is sufficient evidence for commitment, and not whether there is sufficient evidence for conviction. On the other hand, if the Magistrate finds that there is no prima facie evidence or the evidence placed is totally unworthy of credit, it is his duty to discharge the accused at once. It is also settled law that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code, the Magistrate should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. This provision was introduced in the Code to avoid wastage of public time and to save the accused from unavoidable harassment and expenditure. While analyzing the role of the respondent herein (A-6) from the charge sheet and the materials supplied along with it, the above principles have to be kept in mind.
13. In Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and Another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Another, [1995] 6 SCC 194, this Court has considered the scope of quashing an FIR and held that it is settled principle of law that at the stage of quashing an FIR or complaint, the High Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein. By noting the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, this Court held that an FIR or a complaint may be quashed if the allegations made therein are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
14. In Mahavir Prashad Gupta and Another v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Others, [2000] 8 SCC 115, this Court considered the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code and held as under:
“5. The law on the subject is very clear. In the case of State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan [1988] 4 SCC 655 it has been held that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. It has been held that at an initial stage a court should not embark upon an inquiry as to whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. Again in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 this Court has held that the power of quashing criminal proceedings must be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. It has been held that the court would not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. It has been held that the extraordinary or inherent powers did not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.
15. Regarding conspiracy, Mr. Raval, learned ASG after taking us through the averments in the charge sheet based reliance on a decision of this Court in Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi and Others v. State of Maharashtra, [1980] 2 SCC 465 wherein it was held that once the conspiracy to commit an illegal act is proved, act of one conspirator becomes the act of the other. By pointing out the same, learned ASG submitted that the respondent herein (A-6), along with the other conspirators defrauded the Bank’s money by sanctioning loans to various fictitious persons.
16. We have already extracted the relevant allegations and the role of the respondent herein (A-6). The only allegation against the respondent is that he submitted false legal opinion to the Bank in respect of the housing loans in the capacity of a panel advocate and did not point out actual ownership of the properties. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel for the respondent, the respondent was not named in the FIR. The allegations in the FIR are that A-1 to A-4 conspired together and cheated Vijaya Bank, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad to the tune of Rs. 1.27 crores. It is further seen that the offences alleged against A-1 to A-4 are the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is not in dispute that the respondent is a practicing advocate and according to Mr. Venkataramani, he has experience in giving legal opinion and has conducted several cases for the banks including Vijaya Bank. As stated earlier, the only allegation against him is that he submitted false legal opinion about the genuineness of the properties in question. It is the definite stand of the respondent herein that he has rendered Legal Scrutiny Reports in all the cases after perusing the documents submitted by the Bank. It is also his claim that rendition of legal opinion cannot be construed as an offence. He further pointed out that it is not possible for the panel advocate to investigate the genuineness of the documents and in the present case, he only perused the contents and concluded whether the title was conveyed through a document or not. It is also brought to our notice that LW-5 (Listed Witness), who is the Law Officer of Vijaya Bank, has given a statement regarding flaw in respect of title of several properties. It is the claim of the respondent that in his statement, LW-5 has not even made a single comment as to the veracity of the legal opinion rendered by the respondent herein. In other words, it is the claim of the respondent that none of the witnesses have spoken to any overt act on his part or his involvement in the alleged conspiracy. Learned senior counsel for the respondent has also pointed out that out of 78 witnesses no one has made any relevant comment or statement about the alleged involvement of the respondent herein in the matter in question.
17. In order to appreciate the claim and the stand of the respondent herein as a panel advocate, we have perused the legal opinion rendered by the respondent herein in the form of Legal Scrutiny Report dated 10.09.2003 as to the title relating to Sri B.A.V.K. Mohan Rao, S/o late Shri Someshwar Rao which is as under.
“Legal Scrutiny Report
Dated 10.09.2003.
To
The Branch Manager,
Vijaya Bank,
Narayanaguda
Hyderabad
Sir,
Sub:- Title Opinion Shri BAVK Mohan Rao
S/o Late Shri Someswar Rao.
With reference to your letter dated NIL. I submit my Scrutiny Report as hereunder:-
1. Name and address of the Mortgagor
Shri. BAVK Mohan Rao
S/o Late Shri Someswar Rao
R/o 1-1 290/3, Vidyanager, Hyderabad.
2. Details/Description of documents scrutinized:
