JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral) By means of present criminal revision, the revisionist seeks to set aside the order dated 05.04.2013, passed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption (CBI), Dehradun, in C.B.I. case no. 04 of 2012, captioned as CBI vs R.K. Bhaskar and others, under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC, whereby the prayer of the revisionist for discharge was rejected and charges were framed against him for the aforesaid penal sections. 2. Accused no. 3 Jai Prakash Gupta, Advocate, was charge-sheeted by Central Bureau of Investigation in connection with offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. On the basis of the material collected by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC was framed by the learned Special Judge, Anti- Corruption (CBI), Dehradun, on 05.04.2013. The accused revisionist has challenged the same by way of present criminal revision. 3. It is an admitted fact that the revisionist is a practicing lawyer and was a panel lawyer of Canara Bank. The allegation against the revisionist is that he gave a false legal scrutiny report to the Canara bank to facilitate co-accused Virendra Singh in obtaining the loan fraudulently. It is the contention of learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist acted bona fide, and it was only on account of second opinion taken by the bank, that the revisionist was implicated in the case. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that, in his legal report dated 26.07.2010, Mr. Shankar Saran Agarwal, Advocate (from whom second opinion was sought) mentioned that co-accused Virendra Singh sold the property to various persons even before mortgaging it with the Canara bank on 05.06.2009 and the earlier legal report submitted by the revisionist (in his capacity as panel lawyer of the Canara bank) at the time of mortgage of the property was a false report. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on the ruling of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad vs K. Narayana Rao, (2012) 9 SCC 512 . The only allegation against K. Narayana Rao was that he submitted false legal opinion to the bank in respect of the housing loans in the capacity of a panel Advocate and did not point out actual ownership of the properties. The only allegation against K. Narayana Rao was that he submitted false legal opinion to the bank in respect of the housing loans in the capacity of a panel Advocate and did not point out actual ownership of the properties. K. Narayana Rao was not named in the FIR. K Narayana Rao was having experience in giving legal opinion for the banks and the only allegation against him was that he submitted false legal opinion about the genuineness of the properties in question. It was claimed, in the case of K. Narayana Rao, that rendition of legal opinion cannot be construed as an offence, and it was not possible for the panel Advocate to investigate the genuineness of the documents. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the liability against an opining Advocate arises only when the lawyer was an active participant in a plan to defraud the bank. Evidence was required to prove that the panel Advocate was abetting or aiding the original conspirators. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that a lawyer owes his ‘unremitting loyalty’ to the interest of the client and it is the lawyer’s responsibility to act in a manner that would best advance the interest of the client. Merely because the opinion may not be acceptable, he cannot be mulcted with the criminal prosecution, in the absence of tangible evidence that he associated with other conspirators. At the most, he may be liable for gross negligence or professional misconduct, if it is established by acceptable evidence and cannot be charged for the offences under Sections 420 and 109 IPC alongwith other conspirators without proper and acceptable links between them. 5. Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Narayana Rao (supra) also observed as below: “It is not in dispute that the respondent is a practicing advocate and according to Mr. Venkataramani, he has experience in giving legal opinion and has conducted several cases for the banks including Vijaya Bank. As stated earlier, the only allegation against him is that he submitted false legal opinion about the genuineness of the properties in question. It is the definite stand of the respondent herein that he has rendered legal scrutiny reports in all the cases after perusing the documents submitted by the Bank. It is also his claim that rendition of legal opinion cannot be construed as an offence. It is the definite stand of the respondent herein that he has rendered legal scrutiny reports in all the cases after perusing the documents submitted by the Bank. It is also his claim that rendition of legal opinion cannot be construed as an offence. He further pointed out that it is not possible for the panel advocate to investigate the genuineness of the documents and in the present case, he only perused the contents and concluded whether the title was conveyed through a document or not.” 6. In a similar case, being Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) no. 955 of 2011, Vinod Trishal vs CBI and another, decided on 15.10.2012, this Court, relying upon the decision of K. Narayana Rao (supra), held as below: “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 accused 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 the revisionist 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. Co-accused Harish Tiwari was also an empanelled Advocate of Oriental Bank of Commerce in the same criminal case in which Vinod Trishal was the accused. He gave search/legal opinion to the bank concerned in a matter referred to by the bank. Revisionist Harish Tiwari also gave the opinion qua same property. Both Vinod Trishal and Harish Tiwari were arrayed as accused persons. This Court, relying upon K. Narayana Rao’s case (supra) and Vinod Trishal’s case (supra) allowed the criminal revision and set aside the charge framed against the accused by learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption (CBI), Dehradun, vide order dated 21.08.2014. 8. Detailed arguments are advanced by learned counsel for respondent CBI to hold that, prima facie, offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC were made out against the present revisionist. 8. Detailed arguments are advanced by learned counsel for respondent CBI to hold that, prima facie, offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC were made out against the present revisionist. Learned counsel submitted, among other things, that the loss was caused to the bank by the action of the revisionist. The bank acted upon the legal scrutiny report of the revisionist and loan was extended to one Virendra Singh on the basis of revisionist’s report, which stated that the title was clear and it was free from all encumbrances. Learned counsel also submitted that the excuse taken by the revisionist that the record available in the Sub Registrar’s Office was voluminous, large and torn is not a sufficient excuse for him to be exonerated of the charg(es) levelled against him. 9. This Court has considered the ingredients of the offences levelled against the revisionist. It is an admitted fact that the allegations of Prevention of Corruption Act are not levelled against the revisionist. Prima facie, it appears, on the basis of the decision of K. Narayana Rao (supra) that no charge against the revisionist ought to have been framed by learned Special Judge in view of the detailed observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in such cases. Such tangible materials are lacking in the case of the revisionist herein. This Court need not reproduce the relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in this regard. Suffice will it be to say here that the case of the present revisionist is squarely covered by the case of K. Narayana Rao (supra). The revisionist, therefore, meets the same fate, as was met by K. Narayana Rao. 10. As a consequence thereof, present criminal revision is allowed. Charge framed by learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption (CBI), Dehradun against the revisionist on 05.04.2013, in C.B.I. case no. 04 of 2012, CBI vs R.K. Bhaskar and others, under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC is hereby set aside qua revisionist only. CRMA no. 1942 of 2013 and I.A. no. 3317 of 2014 also stand disposed of.