JUDGMENT : This revision is directed against the order dated 7/7/2011 passed by the Special Judge, Panaji in Special Case No.1/2010 thereby discharging the respondent (original accused no. 9) from the charges leveled by the C.B.I/ACB/GOA. The respondent along with accused nos. 1 to 8 are charged for the offences of conspiracy, cheating, falsification of the account and indulging into corrupt practices, which are punishable under section 120-B, 420 IPC and also under section 477-A IPC along with section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that respondent (original accused nos. 4, 5 and 8) had applied for loan to State Bank of India. Respondent (Accused no. 9) was working as the Manager of the said bank at the relevant time. The loan was demanded for purchase of two flats. The respondent, who is a lawyer by profession gave title verification and search report in respect of those two flats to the bank. On accepting the title verification and search report given by respondent (accused no. 9), the loan was disbursed by respondent (accused no. 1) to respondents (accused no. 4 and accused no. 5), the flat owners. C.B.I. found that no flats were constructed and the opinion, title verification and search report given by the respondent was false. It is the case of the C.B.I. that the loan amount was disbursed without taking care and caution on the basis of the false and forged documents and all the respondents (accused) including the respondent (accused no. 9) have conspired and thus, the bank was put to the loss of Rs.72,23,000/-, in the name of different borrowers and respondent (accused no. 1) sanctioned this housing loans and also cash credit loans and two personal loans totally the said amount during the period August 2011 to October 2004. Thus, the Investigating Agency found that the respondents (accused no. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8) have received undue pecuniary advantage and wrongful loss of Rs.72,23,000/- was caused to S.B.I. C.B.I. thereafter filed charge sheet against respondents (accused nos. 1 to 8) and subsequently it filed supplementary charge sheet against respondent (accused no. 9). Respondent (accused no. 9) moved application for discharge under section 227 of Cr. P.C. to the Special Court stating that there was no evidence against him and therefore, he be discharged. 3. 1 to 8) and subsequently it filed supplementary charge sheet against respondent (accused no. 9). Respondent (accused no. 9) moved application for discharge under section 227 of Cr. P.C. to the Special Court stating that there was no evidence against him and therefore, he be discharged. 3. Learned Special Judge after going through the record and the evidence collected by the C.B.I. arrived at a conclusion that there was no material on record to justify that respondent (accused no. 9) had acted in conspiracy with respondent (accused no. 1) and other accused by issuing legal opinion. She found that it was not a case to frame charge against him and therefore she discharged him from the proceeding. Hence, this revision application. 4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the C.B.I. has submitted that respondent (accused no. 9) has given the legal opinion in respect of the flats which were not constructed. He was a panel advocate. He gave false opinion in respect of the flats which were not even constructed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there was no need to give verification as the search report is always given in respect of land. He further argued that the respondent in his legal opinion has falsely stated that the flat was on the third floor though the flat was on the ground floor. As per the sanctioned plan of the building, the third floor does not exist. Learned counsel has submitted that the respondent (accused) though was aware that search report cannot be given to the flat has deliberately given this report to facilitate the loan to the co-accused and thus has conspired with respondent (accused no. 1 to 8) and had put the bank in wrongful loss. He has also caused pecuniary advantage to the respondents (accused no. 1 and other accused) and thereby he along with the other accused have committed offence punishable under sections 420, 477-A IPC and offence under section 120-B IPC and offence under section 13(2) r/w section l3(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corrupt ion Act, 1988. 5. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. with a view to assist the Court has pointed out that the ratio laid down in the ease of "Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. K. Narayana Rao" reported in [2012 ALL SCR 3179]. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. with a view to assist the Court has pointed out that the ratio laid down in the ease of "Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. K. Narayana Rao" reported in [2012 ALL SCR 3179]. 6. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents opposes the revision application and has submitted that the order passed by the Special Judge is to be maintained. 7. Perused the verification and search report given by the respondent. The role attributed to the present respondent is very limited, that is, to the extent of giving search reports dated 25/3/2003 and 19/6/2003. The verification and search report was given in respect of the flats however, the verification and search report is required to give only in respect of 30 years search of a land and not of constructed property. It is disclosed from the record that respondent was working as a panel advocate of State Bank of India. He being a panel advocate of S.B.I. gave search report in respect of the property, so it cannot be considered that he has acted out of the way. The building as per the approved plan was ground plus two floors. However, in the search report, he has mentioned that the flat was on the third floor. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. has taken me to the agreement of sale entered into by the party with the builder in respect of the respective flats wherein the description of the flats is shown. In one agreement it is shown on the ground floor and in the other agreement it is shown as third floor. At one place i.e. in the schedule of the Agreement of Sale of flats, word ground is overwritten and made "third". In the report, nowhere it is mentioned that he has physically verified the place. The report is based on the documents. 8. Assuming the verification report or search report given by the respondent lawyer is totally wrong yet it is not sufficient evidence to frame charge of conspiracy, cheating and corrupt practices against the respondent. It can be said that the respondent lacked in legal knowledge, negligent and has superficially given the opinion. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has fairly pointed out position of law in the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of "Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. K. Narayan Rao" (supra). It can be said that the respondent lacked in legal knowledge, negligent and has superficially given the opinion. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has fairly pointed out position of law in the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of "Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. K. Narayan Rao" (supra). The facts of the said case are nearly identical to the facts of the case in hand. I, therefore, place reliance on paragraphs 25 and 26 of the said judgment which reads as follows: "...25. In Pandurang Dattaraya Khandekar vs. Bar Council of Maharshtra & Ors. (1984) 2 SCC 556 , this Court held that "...there is a world of difference between the giving of improper legal advice and the giving of wrong legal advice. Mere negligence unaccompanied by any moral delinquency on the part of a legal practitioner in the exercise of his profession does riot amount to professional misconduct. 26. Therefore, the liability against an opining advocate arises only when the lawyer was an active participant in a plan to defraud the Bank. In the given case, there is no evidence to prove that A-6 was abetting or aiding the original conspirators." 9. Thus, considering this position, I do not find any material evidence to frame charge against the respondent/accused hence, the view taken by the Special Judge is found to be legal and cannot be faulted with. Thus, no interference is required in the said order. Ordered accordingly.