A special CBI court has directed action against two advocates under the Advocates Act by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for deliberately giving false reports to the State Bank of Travancore in a bank-fraud case.
One of the advocates, Akhilesh Naik had sought discharge in the case, wherein a trust had allegedly cheated the bank of over Rs. 14 crores by availing loans using fabricated documents.
As per the CBI’s case, the advocate had submitted a false report regarding one of the properties that the trust had used as collateral for the loan.
While the court gave Naik a clean chit in the case, it noted that evidence on record proves that he had deliberately given an opinion that he knew to be false, which amounts to misconduct.
Special CBI Judge SU Wadgaonkar said Naik is liable for the initiation of proceedings under the provisions of the Advocates Act. The court also directed the initiation of proceedings against another advocate whom the CBI had not charge-sheeted, claiming there is not sufficient evidence against her.
It directed that the copy of the order with related documents be forwarded through the CBI, which is the prosecuting agency in the case, to pursue the case before the Bar Council of Maharashtra.
It also directed the CBI to forward its order to the Indian Bank Association to ensure that in future, the two advocates not be empanelled on bank panels.
Judge Wadgaonkar also directed the defrauded bank that the two advocates - Naik and Prerna Deshpande, not be taken on their panel and if they are already on its panel, they be de-panelled.
While giving a clean chit to Naik in the case, it said that there is no evidence to prove that he aided or conspired with the conspirators or borrowers. The order said the circumstances on record indicate that one of the co-accused, the then branch manager, for his convenience or to fulfil compliance before sanctioning of loan or its disbursement, had got the false report from advocate Naik. It observed that the furnishing of the false report, however, had no nexus with the conspiracy.
The CBI had alleged that the advocate had conspired with other co-accused and had submitted a false report.
The false report indicated that the trust was the owner of the land, which it showed as collateral for the loan. Naik showed in his report, that he had visited the sub-registrar's office and verified the ownership record of the property when allegedly, he had not done so.
