An advocate owes 'unremitting loyalty' to the client's interests and cannot be charged for penal offences without proper and acceptable link between them and other conspirators.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties.

2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.07.2019, passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I, Ranchi in connection with R.C. 06 (S)/2015-EOW-R vide Misc. Criminal Application No.762 of 2019 by which the prayer of the petitioner to discharge him from the case has been rejected and against the order dated 09.08.2019 passed in R.C. 06 (S)/2015-EOW-R by which the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 120B/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, has been framed against the petitioner-Deepak Kumar Bagty @ Deepak Kumar Bagti.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner being a practicing Advocate in a fraudulent manner intentionally drafted the recitals of the sale deeds bearing no. 3745 and 3739 and deliberately omitted to incorporate the conditions laid down by the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella -Kharsawan that the transfer of the land was for the sole purpose of setting up an industry and such condition was imposed by the Deputy Commissioner in terms of Section 49 (2) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 but the petitioner was instrumental in mentioning in the two sale deeds that “The sellers have delivered possession of the schedule below property to the purchaser and from this day the purchaser will possess and enjoy the same as absolute owner in all possible ways with power to dispose of the same by way of sale, gift, mortgage or any other way whatsoever in manner he/it likes” meaning thereby such recitals of the said two sale deeds gave impression that no condition was imposed at the time of according permission and it is further alleged that this conduct of the petitioner shows his meeting of mind with the co-accused persons of the case who borrowed huge amount of money as loan from a Nationalized Bank by misusing the subsequent deeds of sale executed by the purchasers of the said two sale deeds drafted by the petitioner. It is then alleged that there is also allegation that non-mentioning of the conditions imposed by the Deputy Commissioner while according permission for sale in the said two sale deeds, by the petitioner paved the way for fraudulent drafting of subsequent sale deeds by Deed Writer namely Sri. S.K. Mahto and registration of the same being sale deed nos.393 and 3963 by which the co-accused persons sold out the same land as mentioned in the earlier two sale deeds- the recitals of which were drafted by the petitioner; to other co-accused persons though such sale was not permissible in view of the provision of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.

4. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and he had drafted the sale deeds on the instruction of the executant of the sale deeds. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before execution of the sale deeds; permission in terms of Section 49 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was obtained from the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan vide T.A. Misc. Case No.12/2008-09 in respect of the sale deed no.3739 of the year 2008 of the office of District Sub-Registrar, Seraikella-Kharsawan and vide T.A. Misc. Case No.10 of 2008-09 in respect of the sale deed no.3745 of the year 2008 also of the office of District Sub-Registrar, Seraikella-Kharsawan and the case number of the respective permission case has been mentioned in the first page of each of the said two sale deeds, a copy of each of the first page of the said two sale deeds have been annexed as Annexure-7 and 6 respectively of this criminal revision petition. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the order sheets of the respective permission cases, passed by the Deputy Commissioner that is T.A. Misc. No.10 of 2008-09 as well as 12 of 2008-09, the Deputy Commissioner has mentioned that the draft of the sale deed which was drafted