JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Facts, in brief, are that an FIR was lodged on 24.2.2010 against ten known persons including the present applicant and some other unknown persons for the offence allegedly committed by them during the period 2003 to 2009. Investigation was conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which ended into submission of the impugned chargesheet against the applicant Vinod Trishal amongst other, persons. 2. Vinod Trishal IS a Delhi based Advocate practicing there at Tis Hazari Courts. He was an Empanelled Advocate of Oriental Bank of Commerce. An equitable mortgage of different properties for the sanction of the loan and cash-credit limit was created in favour of the said bank. As per the averments made in the FIR, the Regional Office of the said bank, on the basis of the recommendation of the branch office, enhanced the limit vide sanction letter dated 25.10.2006. Accordingly, the bank guarantee and cash-credit limit were enhanced to the tune of Rs. 550.00 lacs and Rs. 100.00 lacs respectively. A Non Encumbrance Certificate dated 28.11.2006 was given by Vinod Trishal regarding the property which was situated in Delhi. 3. Applicant petitioner, in person, has argued that it is evident on the face of the record that he gave the said Non Encumbrance Certificate after more than a month of the sanction ,already accorded by the bank on 25.10.2006. Attention of this Court was also drawn towards the opinion. givep by the applicant petitioner to the bank, which is contained at page 23 of the petition and the same is reproduced below: “In view of the scrutiny made, it is clear that title of the said Smt. Shanti Devi is clear and marketable and she is fully competent to create equitable mortgage in favour of the bank by depositing the original title deeds as a collateral security and there is no obstacle for the same. It is also important to note here that the party may also be directed to furnish the latest electricity bills, telephone bills, house tax receipts so as to establish their continuous occupation. It is also important to note here that the party may also be directed to furnish the latest electricity bills, telephone bills, house tax receipts so as to establish their continuous occupation. In order to safeguard the interest of the bank, the party may be directed to furnish the existing site plan of the property so as to show the existing construction and as also the documentary evidence about the actual arid physical possession of the owner with complete details’ about the persons in occupation of different portibns and nature of use of the said property. It will be in the interest of the bank to ascertain the factual position and existence, possession and nature of the property by making personal visit on the spot.” 4. In support of the case of applicant, an of late precedent rendered on 21.9.2012 by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Central Bureau of Investigation) Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao (Criminal Appeal No. 1460 of 2012 arising out of the SLP (Crl.) No. 6975/2011) has been relied upon. In this case too, a lawyer, amongst others, was implicated by the CBI in connection with approval and sanction of some bank loans. Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that on seeking opinion from a lawyer by the bank in respect of approval of some bank loan did not disclose any criminal offence against him because there was no direct material to show that he was hand in glove with the real culprits who got their loans sanctioned from the bank by defrauding it in conspiracy with the said lawyer. There was no direct evidence available that the lawyer gave false opinion. In the absence of such materials, he cannot be implicated as one of the conspirators of the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 109 IPC. In that case, Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court had also opined that even after critically examining the entire material, it does not disclose any criminal offence committed by the lawyer. Accordingly, the SLP filed by the CBI was also dismissed. 5. Attention of this Court was also drawn towards page 82 of the petition, on the basis of which it has been submitted that whatever amount was taken by M/s V.K. Aggarwal, & Co. Accordingly, the SLP filed by the CBI was also dismissed. 5. Attention of this Court was also drawn towards page 82 of the petition, on the basis of which it has been submitted that whatever amount was taken by M/s V.K. Aggarwal, & Co. had been returned to be bank except the secured loan obtained on the basis of bank guarantee to the tune of rupees eighty two lakhs, and no other bank dues are pending towards M/s V.K. Aggarwal & Co. 6. Be that as it may, the Court is not inclined to scrutinize the return of the amount to the bank, but finds that sufficient and reliable evidence is not available to prima facie prove the accusation against the present applicant. As such, he could not have been charged for defrauding the bank with other accused persons. Being a legal expert, he gave his opinion as and when sought by the bank, and that too was with certain other observations. There is no direct material against Vinod Trishal to link his nexus with the persons who got their loans approved by defrauding the bank. In the circumstances, he could not have been implicated as one of the conspirators of the alleged offence. 7. For the reasons recorded above and the legal proposition (supra) propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the ongoing trial against the present applicant Vinod Trishal cannot be permitted to continue. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Chargesheet dated 30.7.2011 submitted by the CBl in FIR No. RC0072010A0004 dated 24.2.2010 and the entire proceedings of CBl Case No.2 of 2011, CBI v. M/s. V.K. Aggarwal & Co. & Others, under Section 120B read with Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun are hereby quashed only in respect of the present applicant Vinod Trishal. 8. Inform the court concerned accordingly.