Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Justice Sanjay K. Agarwal of the Chhattisgarh HC dismissed the criminal proceedings being carried out against an Advocate, who was also the petitioner. The petitioner had been booked under the provisions of Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The petitioner was employed as a lawyer in the Dena Bank. The lawyer had sanctioned the documents of ten borrowers who later on failed to repay the loan. Upon investigation it was found that the papers sanctioned by the petitioner were fabricated papers. Following this, an FIR was filed against the petitioner. The petitioner on the other hand challenged the validity of the chargesheet
The HC after looking into the problem held that, "It is well settled law that extending of a legal opinion for granting loan has become an integral component of an advocate’s work in banking sector. A lawyer, on his part, has a responsibility to act to the best of his knowledge and skills and to exhibit an unending loyalty to the interest of his clients. He has to exercise his knowledge in a manner that would advance the interest of his clients.
However, while acting so the advocate does not assure to his client that the opinion so rendered by him is flawless and must in all possibility act to his gains. Just like in any other profession, the only assurance which can be given and may even be implied from an advocate so acting in his professional capacity is that he possesses the requisite skills in his field of practice and while undertaking the performance of task entrusted to him, he would exercise his skills with reasonable competence.
The only liability that may be imputed on an advocate while so acting in his professional capacity is that of negligence in application of legal skills or due exercise of such skills." In the above case, the court held that unless explicit proof was found against the advocate that marked her as an active participant, no criminal proceeding could be moved against her based on these grounds.
Subha Jakkanwar v. State of Chhattisgarh, Crl. Misc. Petition No. 1614 of 2017
86540
103860
630
114
59824