In a significant judgment addressing the scope of professional accountability, the Chhattisgarh High Court quashed criminal charges against Senior Advocate Ramkinkar Singh, accused of issuing a flawed property certification that allegedly contributed to a financial fraud. The court held that negligence alone does not warrant criminal prosecution unless evidence shows active connivance or intent to defraud.
The case, listed as CRMP No. 262 of 2021, was heard by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad. The bench relied on established principles from CBI, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao (2012) to conclude that legal professionals cannot be held criminally liable merely for providing incorrect opinions without evidence of malicious intent.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a First Information Report (FIR) filed on August 2, 2018, by Tileshwar Singh Paikra, the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India (SBI), Chhiraha Branch, District Bemetara. The FIR alleged that Hariram Chandrakar, a borrower, secured a ₹3 lakh loan under the Kisan Credit Card scheme using forged documents. Advocate Ramkinkar Singh, empanelled with SBI, had certified the property offered as collateral as unencumbered and free of disputes.
Subsequent investigations revealed that the property did not belong to the borrower, leading to allegations of negligence against Singh for issuing a flawed search report. The charges framed against him included sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to cheating (Section 420), forgery (Section 467), and use of forged documents (Section 471).
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner:
Senior Advocate Ramkinkar Singh, represented by Mr. Anshul Tiwari, contended that his role as a legal professional was limited to verifying documents provided by the borrower. The petitioner argued that he had no active involvement in the alleged conspiracy and had acted in good faith, based on the material presented to him. The defense further cited the Supreme Court’s decision in K. Narayana Rao, emphasizing that an advocate cannot be held liable unless proven to have actively participated in a fraudulent scheme.
For the Respondents:
Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, and Mr. P.R. Patankar, representing the State and SBI respectively, argued that the petitioner’s negligence caused financial losses to the bank. They contended that Singh’s repeated certifications, despite discrepancies in ownership documents, demonstrated gross negligence warranting criminal proceedings.
High Court’s Observations
The bench examined whether Singh’s actions constituted criminal liability under the IPC. Key observations included:
1. Professional Liability vs. Criminal Intent:
The court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in K. Narayana Rao, which differentiates professional negligence from criminal culpability. It stated:
“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.”
2. Absence of Malicious Intent:
The court found no evidence linking Singh to active participation in the fraudulent scheme. The judgment noted:
“Had there been negligence or untrustworthiness on the petitioner’s part, the bank would have removed him from their panel. The fact that he continues to serve reflects the absence of intent to defraud.”
3. Limited Role of Advocates:
The bench acknowledged that advocates, while performing professional duties, rely on information provided by clients. The judgment clarified that inaccurate opinions due to incomplete or misleading data cannot be construed as criminal acts.
Decision
The High Court quashed the charges against Singh, including the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara, on December 7, 2019, and the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, on January 20, 2021. The bench observed:
“The orders framing charges against the petitioner, as well as the supplementary charge sheet naming him, lack prima facie evidence of his involvement in any conspiracy.”
Consequently, the court directed that all proceedings against Singh be annulled.
