Rahul Dadasaheb Jagtap Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

1 of 5 40&41.WP.2410.2022.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2410 OF 2022

¶4

Rahul Dadasaheb JagtapPetitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

The CBI and anotherRespondents

¶7

AND

¶8

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2411 OF 2022

¶9

Akhilesh Arun NaikPetitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

The CBI and anotherRespondents

¶12

Mr.Sudeep Pasbola i/by Mr.Karl P. Rustomkhan, Advocate for
petitioners.

¶13

Mr.H.S.Venegavkar, Special Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1
CBI in both matters.

¶14

Mr.Arfan Sait, APP, for State.

¶15

CORAM :PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

¶16

DATE :2nd August 2022

¶17

PC :

¶18

1.The petitioners in both the petitions are practicing advocates.
They were prosecuted in RC No.08/E/2019/CBI/EOB/Mumbai
registered under Sections 120B r/w 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of
Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioners were arraigned as
accused Nos. 7 & 6.

¶19

2.The alleged role attributed to the petitioners in Writ Petition
No.2410 of 2022 is that, in the matter of sanction and disbursement
of term loan of Rs.5 Crores and cash credit of Rs.55 Lakhs to M/s.

¶20

Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALI LIYAKAT LIYAKAT JAMADAR JAMADAR Date:2022.08.12 19:59:40 +0530

¶21

2 of 5 40&41.WP.2410.2022.doc

¶22

KEPL from State of Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Branch, Nashik on
instructions of Chief Manager of said Bank Ram Shakya (accused)
submitted fake title investigation reports without conducting search
report from concerned Sub-Registrar Officer, wherein it was
mentioned that ownership of property belong to M/s. KEPL. The role
attributed to Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2411 of 2022 is that, in
the matter of sanction and disbursement of working capital of
Rs.5 Crores to M/s. Kalyani Charitable Trust from State of Bank of
Travancore. The petitioner on the instructions of accused Animesh
Kumar without conducting requisite title search report from
concerned Sub-Registrar office, submitted false title investigation
report dated 7th July, 2014, wherein he mentioned that the
ownership of the property belong to KEPL.

¶23

3.The petitioners applied for discharge before Special Judge for
CBI. The application for discharge was allowed vide order dated 28th
March 2021. However, vide clause (3) of the operative part of order
dated 28th March 2021 it was directed by the Trial Court that copy of
order be forwarded to Indian Bank Association through CBI to ensure
that in future the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2410 of 2022 and
Writ Petition No.2411 of 2022 should not be empanelled on bank
panel and if they are on bank panel, they should be de-empanelled.

¶24

4.Learned advocate for petitioners submitted that Special Judge
(CBI) has travelled beyond its powers. The petitioners were
discharged by the Trial Court from prosecution case and hence there
was no occasion to issue directions as stated above. Pursuant to the
said directions, the petitioners’ names are de-empanelled from the
bank panels. The order affects the right to profession of the

¶25

3 of 5 40&41.WP.2410.2022.doc

¶26

petitioners. In the event bank finds any irregularities in services
provided by advocates in the panel, there is separate procedure
provided for taking action. The order is prejudiced to petitioners,
who are practicing Advocates. The petitioner in Writ Petition
No.2410 of 2022 has been empanelled on legal panel of 3 bank,
since over 6 to 12 years and never faced any complaints of
professional misconduct while discharging his duties. The petitioner
in Writ Petition No.2411 of 2022 is empanelled on 8 Banks since over
10 to 15 years and never faced any complaint of misconduct. Due to
impugned condition, petitioners right to livelihood has been affected.
The State of Bank of India vide circular dated 26th March, 2013 has
laid down process for reviewing of empanelled Advocates and for de-
empanellment of Advocate as per Circular, an empanelled Advocate
should be reviewed every year by concerned controlling Authority
and the review should evaluate the performance of empanelled
Advocate in respect of matters entrusted to Advocate. The
empanelled Advocate can be de-empanelled on the ground such as
professional misconduct, lack of integrity, negligence etc. However,
recommending committee at zonal office will have to first record
their reasons and grounds for de-empanellment.

¶27

5.Learned advocate for respondent – CBI submit that impugned
order was passed by Trial Court on the basis of factual aspects of the
matter.

¶28

6.The petitioners are practicing advocates since last several years
and they were empanelled on various banks. The role attributed to
them was that they had conspired with co-accused and provided
false title reports to the bank. Their application for discharge was

¶29

4 of 5 40&41.WP.2410.2022.doc

¶30

allowed, which indicate that they have not participated in the crime
as conspirators. I have perused the orders passed by Trial Court
discharging petitioners. The order discharging petitioner Rahul
Dadasaheb Jagtap indicate that there is no evidence to prove that
accused was aiding or abetting or conspiring with borrowers or
others. However, acts attributed to the said accused at the most
would amount to misconduct. Similar observations were made in
respect of petitioner Akhilesh Arun Naik. Both the petitioners were
discharged by Trial Court from the proceedings. There is Mechanism
to initiate action by Banks for misconduct of Advocate empanelled on
the Bank. Enquiry is contemplated. The learned judge has directed
drastic action. In the circumstances, directions in clause 3 of the
order dated 28th March, 2022, required to be set aside.

¶31

7. The directions stipulated in clause 3 of the order dated 28^th March, 2021 reads as follows :

¶32

“Copy of order be forwarded to Indian Bank Associates through CBI, to
ensure that, in future Rahul Dadasaheb Jagtap/Akhilesh Arun Naik,
…...should not be empanelled on bank panel and if he is on bank
panel, then de-empanelled him.”

¶33

8.The petitioners are empanelled on several banks. As a
result of the aforesaid direction, they would be or must have
been de-empanelled from panel of Banks without any enquiry by
respective Banks. In the order dated 28th March, 2021,
discharging petitioners, the learned Judge has recorded that,
after analysing all the material grounds are exist to infer that
there is no prima facie case for proceeding in respect of charges
alleged against the petitioners/accused and they are entitled for
discharge.

¶34

5 of 5 40&41.WP.2410.2022.doc

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(i)Writ Petition Nos.2410 of 2022 and 2411 of 2022 are allowed
and disposed off;

¶37

(ii)Clause 3 of order dated 28th March 2021 passed below
Exhibits-49 and 50 respectively in CBI Special Case No.892 of 2021
issuing directions to forward copy of order to Indian Bank
Association through CBI to ensure that in future petitioners should
not be empanelled on bank panel and if they are on bank panel, then
to de-empanell them is quashed and set aside.

¶38

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶39

MST

Rahul Dadasaheb Jagtap v. the Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Dadasaheb Jagtap v. the Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Okoye Cyprain Chinnasa Vs the State of Maharashtra

Imperial Techsol Priavate Limited and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Federal Bank Ltd. through Shalini Nimish Somaiya and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sachin Chemburkar Vs Union of India and Anr.

Akhilesh Arun Naik Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Mrs. Monica Sumit Ujjain Vs Sanchu M. Menon and Anr.