A scribe who drafts a legal document is not automatically liable for crimes related to the identities of the parties involved.

ORDER

The accused No.3 came up against the concurrent findings of conviction rendered by both courts below for the offence punishable under Sections 120B , 419, 465 and 468 IPC r/w Section 34 .

2. The main allegation is against accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5. The allegation is that they have impersonated somebody else in the place of PW1, the owner of the property, and had obtained Ext.P4 sale deed in their favour. Earlier, this property was given by accused Nos.1 and 2 to PW1 under Exhibit P17 sale deed. Later on, got it back under Ext.P4 by playing impersonation. Accused No.3 is the scribe who prepared the draft of the sale deed. Nothing was brought to the notice of this Court to show that he was also an active participant of the alleged impersonation or the act of commission of offence. He was only a scribe who prepared a draft for the sale deed. That alone will not be sufficient to extend the criminal liability under the abovesaid provisions unless there is active participation on his part. There is no evidence, either to show the active participation or even any kind of participation in the alleged commission of offence. He is not a party to the alleged commission of the offence, except for the fact that, he has prepared a draft sale deed. The person who drafted the sale deed need not aware of the identity of the person who executed the document. It is for that purpose, provisions were made so as to introduce the executant before the Sub Registrar by two independent witnesses by affixing their signatures in the relevant place. Accused No.3 is not an identifying witness or an introducing witness. But he is a licensee to draft sale deeds, and what he did is discharge of his function as a licensee, and he need not know about the identity of the person who executed the sale deed or the beneficiary under the document. All these are really alien to the function of the scribe. The legal position would be different when he acted as an attesting witness, an introducing witness, or anything done beyond the scope of his normal work. Necessarily, the failure on the part of both the courts below to consider the abovesaid aspects would be sufficient grounds to interfere with the same in revision. Hence, the finding of the guilt of the accused and the conviction for the offence under Sections 120B , 419, 465 and 468 IPC r/w Section 34 will stand set aside. The accused was found not guilty of the abovesaid offences and acquitted under all charges and is set at liberty. Bail bonds, if any, executed will stand cancelled. The Crl.Revision Petition will stand allowed.