Legal professionals cannot be expected to detect forgery or fabrication of documents and their role is limited to providing legal opinions based on the documents presented to them.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai dismissing the plea for discharge raised by the third accused, the present criminal revision is preferred by him. Criminal Original Petition No.8844 of 2008 is filed praying to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.7651 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The petitioners in both the proceedings are Advocates by profession. As they have been charged fundamentally on the ground that they issued legal opinion which paved way for forgery of documents, fabrication of records and cheating, they have been arraigned as accused in the respective proceedings.

3. The prosecution has come out with a case that the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.311 of 2008, having hatched a criminal conspiracy along with the first accused during the period from 2001 to 2003, fraudulently availed credit facility in the form of Packing Credit and other loans from Bank of India, Chennai, Main Branch by impersonation, producing fabricated documents and offering forged title deeds as collateral securities and thereby he, along with the other accused, committed offences punishable under section 120(B) read with sections 193, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code .

4. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8844 of 2008, who figures as the third accused in C.C.No.7651 of 2003, was also charged with hatching a criminal conspiracy with other accused and availing loan from Indian Bank, Royapuram Branch by submitting false and fabricated documents and thereby they cheated the said Bank and committed offences punishable under section 120(B) read with section 420 and sections 419, 420, 467, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the plea of the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.311 of 2008 that the bank had not acted solely upon the opinion given by the petitioner herein that the first accused therein had marketable, complete, valid, absolute, perfect, legal and enforceable title to the immovable properties offered as collateral security. Further, it is observed by the Trial Court as far as the search report given by the petitioner that it was too early to give a finding at that stage as to whether the petitioner had gone to the Sub Registrars office to verify the records. In view of the above, the Trial Court chose to dismiss the discharge petition filed by the third accused/petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.311 of 2008.

6. The court is called upon to decide whether there is any illegality or impropriety in dismissing the plea for discharge made by the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.311 of 2008 and whether there is abuse of the process of the court in arraigning the petitioner/third accused in Crl.O.P.No.8844 of 2008.

7. The petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.311 of 2008 has given a legal opinion based on certain xerox copies and original sale deeds and other documents of title that the first accused had marketable complete, valid, absolute, perfect, legal and enforceable title to the properties referred to him for opinion. He also observed in the legal opinion that the property was not encumbered as per the encumbrance certificate produced upto 10. 2001. In the search report separately given by the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.311 of 2008, he has observed that as per the search conducted before the Sub Registrar at Sembium and Ambattur, the properties were not encumbered and were free to be encumbered in favour of Bank of India, Main Branch, Chennai.

8. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8844 of 2008 had the occasion to peruse the original documents relating to one item of the property and xerox copies relating to the other item of the property beforeever he gave legal opinion. He had given a legal opinion that Sri.Marimuthu Reddy @ Mariappa Reddy has got good, valid, marketable and perfect title over the property offered as collateral security. He has given his opinion subject t