Mere Negligence Unaccompanied By Moral Delinquency By A Legal Practitioner Is Not Professional Misconduct: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court observed that mere negligence, unaccompanied by any moral delinquency on the part of a legal practitioner in the exercise of his profession, does not amount to professional misconduct.

In that context, the Bench of Justice K Babu observed 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 not amount to professional misconduct... at the most, the lawyer may be liable for negligence if it is established by acceptable evidence and cannot be charged for the offences under Sections 420 and 109 IPC."

Senior Counsel Renjith Thampan, along with others, appeared for the petitioner, while Special GP Raesh A and Senior Public Prosecutor Rekha appeared for the respondents.

The accused, a legal advisor employed at Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Limited (KTDFC), faced charges of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) in conjunction with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act). Additionally, he was accused under Section 420 for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, Section 465 for forgery, Section 468 for forgery for cheating, Section 471 for using a forged document as genuine, and Section 120-B for criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Dissatisfied with the Special Judge's decision to reject his discharge under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the 7th accused appealed to the High Court.

The accused filed a revision petition in the High Court. The 1st accused in this case, serving as the managing director of KTDFC, had the 8th accused as their spouse, while the 2nd to 6th accused were KTDFC employees. The allegation centered around the 8th accused and 1st accused obtaining a financial benefit of Rs.76,92,171 through KTDFC's Aiswarya Griha Housing Finance Scheme. The claim asserted that the petitioner, the accused, facilitated the approval of their loan application by providing a legal scrutiny certificate without proper document verification. The accusation further contended that the petitioner conspired with them, despite knowing their ineligibility for the loan. The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram Unit, conducted the investigation, and the case awaited resolution in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. 

The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner had only submitted an undated legal opinion upon the company's request, months after the alleged offense. It was asserted that the petitioner couldn't be implicated in a conspiracy post its commission, and there was no basis to connect them to any conspiracy. Conversely, the Government Pleader contended that the petitioner failed to verify original documents before issuing the legal opinion and had knowledge of the conspiracy.

The Court observed that, "The prosecution failed to establish the association of the petitioner with the other accused in any of the acts which led to the commission of the offences. The prosecution also failed to establish the knowledge of the petitioner regarding any of the design made by the other accused in the commission of the offences. There is no meeting of minds with the petitioner. There is no iota of evidence to infer that at a single point of time the petitioner entered into an agreement with the other accused in the commission of the offences."

Resultantly, the petition was allowed and the petition was discharged of the offences.

Appearances:

Petitioner: Senior Counsel Renjith Thampan, Counsels VM Krishnakumar, Maya M 

Respondents: Special GP Raesh A, Senior Public Prosecutor Rekha 

Cause Title: Vazhuthacaud R Narendran Nair vs State of Kerala & Anr.

Click here to read/download the Judgment