Dismissed

Varanasi Seetharama Deekshitulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC1 Oct 2012CRLP/6923/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed criminal petitions challenging an anticipatory bail application filed by a panel advocate accused of cheating banks using forged documents to secure loans, rejecting arguments that legal professionals are not required to verify title genuineness or that bank circular violations preclude criminal liability.

What did the court decide?

All criminal petitions are dismissed; anticipatory bail application is rejected.

Varanasi Seetharama Deekshitulu, Vs The State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

Crl.P.Nos.6922 to 6926 of 2012

¶3

C O M M O N O R D E R:

¶4

The petitioner in these petitions is accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471/34 IPC. He is a practicing advocate at Tanuku and he is stated to be panel advocate of Union Bank of India, Tanuku branch. It is alleged that A.1 in these cases obtained loans from the said bank for working capital for fish tanks and that the account was introduced by the petitioner and that the loan accounts became overdue and NPAs (non-performing assets). It is further alleged that a group of persons involved themselves in bringing forged and fake documents of title and fake pattadar pass books and revenue title deed books and other fake revenue records to obtain loans by cheating banks and that they were assisted by a valuer of Palakol and the petitioner/advocate of Tanuku to give legal title report for the property which is not in existence.

¶5

2. It is contended by Senior Counsel for the petitioner that it is not part of duty of a legal professional to undertake

¶6

investigation into genuineness of the documents/title deeds and making search of records and registers in registration offices, municipal offices and revenue offices. Reliance is

¶7

placed on P.Venkateswara Rao v State (unreported

¶8

order dated 23.11.2011 in Crl.P.No.2608 of 2009) of this Court. It is further contended that the Courts have consistently held that even if there are any deviations or non-compliance of any bank circulars in this regard, such instances would not lead to criminal liability for the above offences. It is further contended that the said view of this Court was confirmed by the Supreme Court on 21.09.2012 in Crl.A.No.1460 of 2012 (Central Bureau of

¶9

Investigation v K.Narayana Rao).

¶10

3. This is not a case of mere non-following of bank circulars by the panel advocate in giving legal opinion on title deeds etc. But there is further material collected by the Investigating Officer from the alleged confessional statement of the main accused that the loanee himself/herself gave an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the panel advocate who is the petitioner and obtained favourable legal opinion on the basis of forged and fake documents. Thus, there is prima facie

¶11

material to show that the petitioner gave false legal opinion in favour of loanees after obtaining illegal gratification and made the bank to part with huge amounts of loans running into several millions of rupees which loans have become NPAs. Having regard to the above allegations, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶12

4. In the result, all the criminal petitions are dismissed.

¶13

_____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J

¶14

Dt.1^st October, 2012

¶15

PNV

Varanasi Seetharama Deekshitulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varanasi Seetharama Deekshitulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chella Durga Rao Vs The State of A.P.

Manda Biksham Raju Vs The State of A.P.

Viswanadham Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Zubair Vs The State of A.P.

Smt. Rasheeda Begum Vs M.Srinivas Rao

Neeta Jain, (A-1), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh