A legal professional may still face liability when knowingly facilitating acts involving forgery and criminal conspiracy while performing their duties.

O R D E R

The third accused in C.C No.678/2012 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this revision petition against the order dated 24.04.2019 of that court in C.M.P No.372/2019, rejecting his request for discharge from the criminal prosecution in that case. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 120B , 465, 468, 471, 417, 473 and 419 r/w Section 34 I.P.C.

2. The case against the petitioner is summarised as follows:

The petitioner is a practising lawyer at Thiruvananthapuram. He entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other four accused in this case, and forged bogus title deeds, tax receipts, solvency certificates and identity cards for accused Nos.1 and 2, and submitted those records on 23.12.2004, for releasing the second accused in Crime No.372/2004 of Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram on bail under the suretyship of accused Nos.1 and 2. Thus, the petitioner, in conspiracy with the other accused, managed to enlarge the second accused in Crime No.372/2004 of Fort Police Station on bail by resorting to forgery and cheating.

3. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that he is totally innocent and that a false case has been foisted against him. According to the petitioner, he had only performed his professional duty of rendering legal assistance to the second accused in the aforesaid crime for getting bail by submitting the records procured by accused Nos.1 and 2, who stood as his sureties. It is further stated that the father of the second accused in Crime No.372/2004, had arranged the sureties and the necessary documents for the release of the above accused. According to the petitioner, the Investigating Officer in the aforesaid crime, had foisted a false case against him since he had filed a petition before the Magistrate concerned when the Investigating Officer failed to produce the accused in Crime No.372/2004 of Fort Police Station before the learned Magistrate, within time after police custody. With the aforesaid contentions, the petitioner filed C.M.P No.372/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram for his discharge, but the learned Magistrate dismissed the aforesaid application. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. The case against the petitioner pertains to the production of forged title deeds, tax receipts, solvency certificates and identity cards for accused Nos.1 and 2, who stood as surety for the second accused in Crime No.372/2004 of Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, and got the said accused released on bail. The second accused in Crime No.372/2004 of Fort Police Station, is arraigned as CW1 in the final report filed in this case. The father of the above person is arraigned as CW11 in the final report. CW1 and CW11 are natives of Tamil Nadu. The charge against CW1 in Crime No.372/2004 of Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, is that he, along with the other accused in that case, committed murder of a gem dealer at Manacaud in Thiruvananthapuram. After remaining in judicial custody for several days, he was granted bail by this Court. However, conditions were imposed for ensuring the solvency of the persons who stand as sureties for him. It is for fulfilling the aforesaid conditions that the petitioner herein is alleged to have conspired with the other accused and procured the accused Nos.1 and 2 as sureties with forged title deeds, tax receipts,