The Patna High Court has set aside a Magistrate’s order taking cognizance against advocate Gopal Krishna Agrawal, who was prosecuted over legal opinions he gave to UCO Bank on properties offered as loan security. Justice Rana Vikram Singh held that a legal opinion, by itself, cannot be a basis for criminal proceedings against a lawyer.
Background
The case began with Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 366 of 2008, registered on a written report by the Chief Manager of UCO Bank’s Exhibition Road Branch, Patna. The bank alleged irregularities in cash-credit facilities given to four borrowers. The accounts later became Non-Performing Assets, and the bank reported a loss of Rs 29.54 lakh.
Agrawal, a panel advocate of the bank, had given two opinions, dated 2 May 2002 and 21 October 2003, on properties offered as collateral. On 21 January 2016, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, took cognizance under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the IPC. Agrawal then approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
His counsel argued that the opinions were given in good faith, on documents supplied to him, and that he had advised the bank to verify the originals itself. He also said Agrawal gained nothing from the transactions. The bank and the State opposed the plea, saying the opinions showed his involvement and that he could raise his defence at trial.
The Court noted that the bank’s own report asked for action against borrowers, guarantors and bank officials, not the lawyers. It also found that Agrawal’s opinions asked the bank to examine the non-encumbrance certificate at its own level. Relying on the Supreme Court’s rulings in K. Narayana Rao and Surendra Nath Pandey, it said an opining advocate can face liability only if he actively took part in a plan to defraud the bank.
Examining each charge, the Court found no allegation of entrustment of property, of cheating, of making or using forged documents, or of any agreement with other accused. On the importance of fearless advice, it said:
“A lawyer, being an integral and significant component of the justice delivery system, would not be able to give his professional advice without any fear and favour, if faced with the imminent criminal prosecution for professional advice tendered to his client.”
The Court also said negligence or misconduct, even if proved, is a different matter:
“At the most, in the given case, an Advocate may be liable for gross negligence and professional misconduct, which is, if, established by placing a cogent, credible, unimpeachable evidence on record but even for such proved professional misconduct or negligence, an Advocate cannot be charged or fastened with the criminal liability along with other conspirators, who may have direct and vested interest in the issue.”
It also criticised how the cognizance order was written. It appeared to be a clerk-drafted proforma with a blank space that the Magistrate filled in with the word “cognizance”:
“It should be reflected by the order that it has been considered and passed by the concerned learned Magistrate and not by the concerned clerk, who having written a proforma order, left a blank space which is simply filled by concerned Magistrate by putting the word ‘cognizance’.”
Allowing the application, the High Court quashed the 21 January 2016 order and all consequent proceedings, as far as Agrawal is concerned.
Case Details
Case Title: Gopal Krishna Agrawal v. The State of Bihar & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 50456 of 2016
Judge: Justice Rana Vikram Singh
Decision Date: 26 October 2026
