2013 (7) TMI 588 - SC - Indian Laws

Inherent power of High Court - Whether 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 - jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Cr.PC 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 extraordinary or inherent powers did not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice - the power being extraordinary has to be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional circumstances court relied upon the judgement of State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan (1988 (10) TMI 260 - SUPREME COURT). What amounts to conspiracy difference between conspiracy and negligence - Professional misconduct - Whether the respondent was liable for abusing their official position as public servants and for having conspired with private individuals u/s 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 471 r.w. Section 109 of the IPC and Section 13(2) r.w. Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Held that - He cannot be charged for the offence under Sections 420 and 109 of IPC along with other conspirators without proper and acceptable link between them 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 court followed the judgement of Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Ors. (1983 (10) TMI 225 - SUPREME COURT) - At the most he may be liable for gross negligence or professional misconduct if it is established by acceptable evidence - the liability against an opining advocate arises only when the lawyer was an active participant in a plan to defraud - there was no evidence to prove that respondent was abetting or aiding the original conspirators decided against the CBI.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Allegations and evidence against the respondent (A-6) regarding conspiracy and submission of false legal opinion.
3. Applicability of legal standards for framing charges and discharge of the accused.
4. Professional liability of a lawyer in rendering legal opinions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Exercise of Power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction while quashing the criminal proceedings against the respondent under Section 482 of the Code. It was emphasized that the powers under Section 482 are inherent and should be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and in exceptional circumstances. The Court cited several precedents, including *State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh* and *Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation*, to underline that at the initial stage, if there is strong suspicion, the court should proceed with the trial. The High Court's decision to quash the proceedings was scrutinized to determine if it was justified based on the materials presented.

2. Allegations and Evidence Against the Respondent (A-6) Regarding Conspiracy and Submission of False Legal Opinion:
The respondent was charged with submitting false legal opinions regarding housing loans, which allegedly facilitated a conspiracy to defraud the bank. The Supreme Court noted that the respondent was not named in the FIR and his role was only highlighted in the charge sheet. The allegations included failure to point out the actual ownership of properties and falsity in municipal permissions. The Court analyzed the charge sheet and the legal scrutiny reports provided by the respondent, concluding that there was no material to show that the respondent conspired with the other accused (A-1 to A-3) or intentionally provided false opinions.

3. Applicability of Legal Standards for Framing Charges and Discharge of the Accused:
The Court reiterated the principles for framing charges and discharging the accused under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code. It emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the court should not conduct a detailed analysis of the evidence but should determine if there is a prima facie case. The Court cited *P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala* and *Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation* to illustrate that the presence of strong suspicion is sufficient to proceed with the trial. However, in this case, the Court found that the evidence against the respondent was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of conspiracy or fraud.

4. Professional Liability of a Lawyer in Rendering Legal Opinions:
The Supreme Court discussed the professional liability of lawyers, noting that a lawyer is expected to exercise reasonable competence and skill while rendering legal opinions. The Court referred to *Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab* and *Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra* to highlight that mere negligence does not amount to professional misconduct or criminal liability unless there is evidence of active participation in a fraudulent scheme. The Court concluded that the respondent, as a panel advocate, provided legal opinions based on the documents supplied by the bank and there was no evidence to suggest he was part of the conspiracy.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the criminal proceedings against the respondent, agreeing that there was no prima facie case for proceeding with the charges. The appeal by the CBI was dismissed, emphasizing that without tangible evidence linking the respondent to the conspiracy, criminal prosecution was unwarranted.