JUDGMENT 1. - Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned order. 2. The petitioner, when he was a Notary Public, at the relevant time, he attested a sale letter, on which the petitioner made an attestation admittedly on the basis of information of accused Manish. Now, on a complaint being filed, the petitioner has been summoned as an accused for the offences of cheating, forgery and conspiracy by the order dated 6.10.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First, Class, Sanchore, District-Jalore. 3. The aforesaid order has been assailed by way of filing this miscellaneous petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was simply performing the job of Notary Public and admittedly the attestation has been made by the petitioner on the sale letter on the basis of information given by co-accused Manish, who was the Director of Sri Ram Finance Company at the relevant time and as such the petitioner has not committed any offence. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the impugned order. 6. Admittedly, in this case, the attestation, which has been made by the petitioner, has been done on the basis of the information given by accused Manish and as such it cannot be said that the petitioner was having any mens rea to commit the offences for which he has been summoned. 7. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition succeeds and the impugned order taking cognizance is quashed qua the petitioner.Petition allowed. *******